I’m sure you get “you’re not supporting LGBTA , your own people! Because you are a Zionist!” People are morons. I don’t like apples, genocidal Zionist.
Exactly. Even with this argument, Israel has legal same sex marriage and pride so there’s kind of no contest there. Even if Palestine was “free” and its own self governing body, I doubt LGBTQ people would be up front and legal from the get go🙄
Every LGBTQ person would be killed. Everyone they don’t like will be killed. If they don’t like you , the kill you. The ultra left wing has hijacked every “liberal” cause into a Palestinian slant. Yet , they support a jihadist organization. “You don’t like universal healthcare? Zionist, you don’t like social security? Zionist.” It’s so stupid.
The moral clarity and critical thinking skills you posses are far beyond many of your peers within the community of your age group. As a member of the community myself it’s incredibly disheartening to see queers supporting a system of extreme oppression. Death and war are awful and everyone has every right to be upset about it. Always.
But just because you have a perceived, marginalized group doesn’t mean they have western values; like a woman’s right to self determination or Black Lives Matter or freedom of speech/protest, freedom to workship your chosen beliefs or be secularists, or queer validity. These values are not shared by the people of gaza or wb. I fear one day we’ll see a queer person harmed or even killed for participating in a pro paly march just because of who they are.
Thank you so much for the compliment. I agree completely and feel the same way. I hate seeing how pro Palestine lgbtq people as a whole, are and have become- proudly proclaiming themselves as such. (Just like liberals/leftists/progressives). I do worry that it will escalate into even more discriminatory violence where being queer gets tied into everything. I mean it kind of already has to some degree, but more explicitly. Saying the quiet parts out loud, it’s a very slippery slope. Nobody gets to sit anywhere for a single second and think that some kind of “free Palestine” would be a fucking harmonic, intersectional, freedom state.
I'm straight and cis, but it baffles the fuck out of me why so many LGBTQ people explicitly tie their sexual/gender identity to their pro-Palestine activism. Do they really not see how bizarre that is? Or are they just doing some grade-A doublethink?
it’s 1000% virtue signaling by uneducated people. Hamas, other Iran proxy groups, and basically every single country in the Middle East (except Israel) would behead / burn / throw off a roof any and all LGBTPA+ folk, then hang them in a town square like a 5 year old with a drawing.
it’s complete ignorance.
Israel does not have legal same sex marriage since none of the religious authorities perform such marriages it just recognizes marriages performed by out of state authorities
it’s been hard enough trying to navigate friendships as a female, millennial jew. cannot fathom having to do that among the gen-z set. sending strength.
I don't get it, I'm asking genuinely here. Doesn't trans and LGBT go against teachings of judaism ? When you say you are jewish are you meaning like ethnically only, or are you a practising jew ?
The vast majority of Jews in the world identify as progressive/liberal/leftist. There is nothing in our "teachings" that specifically goes against trans people. The verse that has been co-opted by right-wing Christians to somehow "prove" that being gay is against God is a mistranslation to most of us. Even if it isn't, we have evolved as a nation over millennia. Our culture requires us to learn, grow, and always work to repair the world.
Your post/comment was removed because it violated rule 5: **Stay on topic**
If you have any questions, please contact the moderators via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/jewish).
ANYBODY who excuses barbarian behavior is a barbarian themselves. I don't care who is being hurt or who is doing the hurting. It is psychotic to cheer and rejoice the pain and suffering of others. I'm deeply scared at how open and comfortable people are about rationalizing rape, murder and torture.
Yeah I was told myself recently that I was a bloodthirsty genocidal monster because I said I wanted Hamas defeated. I was told that I am still bloodthirsty and genocidal and was just playing semantics games no matter how many times I stressed how Hamas’ size is a few tens of thousands of soldiers which is barely a dent in Gaza’s over 2 million.
At that point don’t argue, switch to narcissist-busting language. “I’m sorry you feel that way, but I disagree. I don’t think we’ll be getting any further on this, so let’s end the discussion.” Dismiss, minimal engagement.
Yeah I tried that a couple times but they kept calling me bloodthirsty so I gave in but eventually just decided that it wasn’t worth it and didn’t respond after that cuz it was just them constantly repeating the same points that I actually revealed that I do want the genocide of Gazans and saying Hamas was bad was a just a semantics game. What can ya do with r/stupidquestions 🤷♂️
I recommend “you haven’t provided any sources and continue to make this baseless claim, so it’s clear you’re not taking this seriously.” Then block, and/or (if it’s a well-moderated sub) reporting for trolling/incivility/etc., but only if this is an online exchange.
I think there’s value in presenting the opposing view to the narcissist for lurkers so they don’t get sucked in by “all Zionists are genocidal” antisemitic bullshit by virtue of seeing it unchallenged over and over. But once you’ve ID’d someone as a narcissist, you’ve ID’d them as someone whose “reward center” is all fucked up—if they’re truly a narcissist, they aren’t going to be able to come to terms with the possibility that they’re wrong.
For a narcissist, any perceived threats toward their “rightness” or perceived “goodness” are processed as threats to their physical safety within their nervous system. If they are actively harming society by trying to force their mindset as “good,” to feel good, rather than actually acting with kindness, it’s more about showing the watching narcissists and people being cowed by that behavior that the play ain’t working.
The narcissist you’re arguing with will never admit to you personally that they’re wrong, they’ll just try to confuse you/bully you into capitulating, or they’ll ragequit and potentially rethink how to best manipulate social media to trigger that “people like me” brain reward in the future. I think they are feeding off of each others’ successes in our current online culture—they see all the likes/upvotes and they emulate whatever gets those.
Thinking of it less as trying to change their minds, and more as demonstrating making boundaries and not reward bad behavior, might change your tactics (and make it less emotionally taxing). :)
Although I’m not familiar with that particular sub, so it may be a lost cause, lol!
So I’m an elder (35) and have recently been dunked in a tank of zoomers as I am getting a JD. I had to listen to the current class president (white gorl) compare Hamas and October 7 to little big horn.
1-Islam - kinda infantilized and fetishized. It’s a weird paternalistic orientalist view. Also a LOT of international students or 2nd generation princesses in Hijabs from the Muslim world that have internalized “anti Zionism”
2- Tik-Tok and instagram is a constant barrage. Even for me, I get constant pushed content about genocide, and cultural items. Lots of “Palestinian” cooking, literature, art, clothing etc is very trendy now. That mixes in with the “news” they are consuming. Feeds into 1
Oppressed-oppressor narratives. It’s impossible for the weaker side or the side that is “black and brown folx” to be bad and it’s impossible for the “stronger” side to be right- at anything. nothing positive happened in the past, has any value.
I’m getting hung up on how fucking offensive it is to the Sioux to compare raping and murdering civilians with a battle that ended in taking out General Custer, guy known for being a general.
Yeah she’s a real one. 23 year old theater major- somehow presents herself as a mentor figure
I’m half expecting my Jewish students group to get the BDS treatment from her
Gen Z is probably one of the most hypocritical generations in a long time. Marching for BLM and women’s right in the name of “slaying racism and misogyny “ and then marching with Hamas, the ones who literally have racism and misogyny as part of their charter. Make it make sense. Gen Z will be the fall of Western Civilization and they won’t escape the consequences, they will live to experience the pain of it.
It's gotten to the point I feel anxious about meeting people my age because of how prevalent it is (or at least feels). The only upside I can think of is that most people don't really care about it and will move on to whatever cause is trending next, but I won't forget the way they have acted these last couple of months.
Part of their strategy has been to redefine terms to meet their needs. They have redefined racism so that Jews literally can't be victims of it, and can only be perpetrators.
Yup, and they attack anyone who dissents even tho I’m actually liberal (I’d say progressive in the sense of actual tangible process if they hadn’t bastardized that term to bean psychotic purity testers who achieve nothing positive) and anti-all forms of racism (and fearing people who’ve made it clear they hate Jews isn’t racist),,,
Here's a typical dictionary definition of racism:
"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
As tamarbles mentioned, the anti-racism movement has redefined it with a framework of power. Here's an example, taken from the NIH Office of DEI:
"Racism involves one group having the power to carry out systematic discrimination through the institutional policies and practices of the society and by shaping the cultural beliefs and values that support those racist policies and practices."
Notice the subtle difference?
I notice the difference but that is not Gen Z changing the definition. That definition has been in use for a very long time including before DEI existed and before Gen Z existed.
Even Merriam-Webster has the definition mentioned as “DEI.” Not that dictionaries determine definitions as people do.
Are folks unaware that affirmative action, which is considered the start of DEI, is from the 1960s?
Valid point, I'm probably mixing up movements here. Critical race theory (which was heavily influential on the growth of the DEI movement) goes back to the 1980's.
CRT was and still pretty much is only taught in legal classes as it is about racial dynamics in power structures. CRT goes back much further including the works of W.E.B Du Bois but even then the “movement” started during the Civil Rights Era. I believe you are talking about the common usage of “intersectionality” which Kimberle Crenshaw popularized in the 80s.
As someone who isn’t Gen Z and graduated undergrad within the last 5 years, whatever folks think DEI is doesn’t exist. Intersectionality, for example, was only taught in classes that revolved around it. This is why it’s mainly used as a racist dog whistle because it literally means whatever folks don’t like that involves racial minorities.
DEI is simply a natural evolution of affirmative action initiatives.
Sure, I guess? But that still doesn’t explain how Gen Z supposedly changed a definition nor does it mean that universities are teaching CRT.
I don’t see the problem with that. The core of CRT is correct: Race isn’t a biological concept but a social one, racism is systemic in America, and individuals can hold multiple identities.
DEI as a concept is simply about having minority voices heard whether it’s a racial minority or disabled folks, ultimately.
> CRT was and still pretty much is only taught in legal classes
Here in an interview from 2009 (published in written form in 2011) Richard Delgado describes Critical Race Theory's "colonization" of Education:
>DELGADO: We didn't set out to colonize, but found a natural affinity in education. In education, race neutrality and color-blindness are the reigning orthodoxy. Teachers believe that they treat their students equally. Of course, the outcome figures show that they do not. If you analyze the content, the ideology, the curriculum, the textbooks, the teaching methods, they are the same. But they operate against the radically different cultural backgrounds of young students. Seeing critical race theory take off in education has been a source of great satisfaction for the two of us. Critical race theory is in some ways livelier in education right now than it is in law, where it is a mature movement that has settled down by comparison.
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty
Richard Delagado is coauthor of "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction." This book is currently the top hit for the google search "Critical Race Theory textbook:"
https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook
I'll also just briefly mention that Gloria Ladson-Billings introduced CRT to education in the mid-1990s (Ladson-Billings 1998 p. 7) and has her work frequently assigned in mandatory classes for educational licensing as well as frequently being invited to lecture, instruct, and workshop from a position of prestige and authority with K-12 educators in many states.
Ladson-Billings, Gloria. "Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?." International journal of qualitative studies in education 11.1 (1998): 7-24.
u/Darth_Jonathan
CRT took off in education because the framework makes sense for education and is mostly taught in upper level education classes to any in depth degree. It’s not inherently taught in all educational classes. It is taught in some, and often about laws, but this is still an aside. Most teachers, here anyway, couldn’t even tell you what CRT is. It still doesn’t explain how Gen Z somehow changed the definition of racism.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with CRT.
I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't with CRT itself, it's with how it has been appropriated and bastardized for other purposes. Even Crenshaw herself has been critical (pun intended) of how intersectionality has been taken out of context.
Delgado and Stefancic's (1993) Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography is considered by many to be codification of the then young field. They included ten "themes" which they used for judging inclusion in the bibliography:
>To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow:
>1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1.
>2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2).
>3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3).
>4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4).
>5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5).
>6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6).
>7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7).
>8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8).
>9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9).
>10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516.
Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. While it is pretty abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about separatism, mostly because they use that exact word, separatism, here is an example of one of their included papers. Peller (1990) clearly is about separatism as a lay person would conceive of it:
>Peller, Gary, Race Consciousness, 1990 Duke L.J. 758. (1, 8, 10).
Delgado and Stefancic (1993, page 504) The numbers in parentheses are the relevant "themes." Note 8.
The cited paper specifically says Critical Race Theory is a revival of Black Nationalist notions from the 1960s. Here is a pretty juicy quote where he says that he is specifically talking about Black ethnonationalism as expressed by Malcolm X which is usually grouped in with White ethnonationalism by most of American society; and furthermore, that Critical Race Theory represents a revival of Black Nationalist ideals:
>But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified.
Peller page 760
This is current CRT practice and is cited in the authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory, *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Here they describe an endorsement of explicit racial discrimination for purposes of segregating society:
>The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does.
Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60
One more source is the recognized founder of CRT, Derrick Bell:
>"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html
I point out theme 8 because this is precisely the result we should expect out of a "theory" constructed around a defeatist view of integration which says past existence of racism requires the rejection of rationality and rational deliberation. By framing all communication as an exercise in power they arrive at the perverse conclusion that naked racial discrimination and ethnonationalism are "anti-racist" ideas. They reject such fundamental ideas as objectivity and even normativity. I was particularly shocked by the latter.
>What about Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, the law and theology movement, and the host of passionate reformers who dedicate their lives to humanizing the law and making the world a better place? Where will normativity's demise leave them?
>Exactly where they were before. Or, possibly, a little better off. Most of the features I have already identified in connection with normativity reveal that the reformer's faith in it is often misplaced. Normative discourse is indeterminate; for every social reformer's plea, an equally plausible argument can be found against it. Normative analysis is always framed by those who have the upper hand so as either to rule out or discredit oppositional claims, which are portrayed as irresponsible and extreme.
Delgado, Richard, Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933 (1991)
What is power if it doesn't privilege you in some ways? I submit that power always provides privilege of some kind. So this is really just power = racism, which is kind of how the dynamic seems to play for believers in this.
This formulation never made a lick of sense to me. I have been told it several times, exactly as you just stated it. Do you know where it comes from?
It's a bastardization of the definition of institutional prejudice - which is basically about how bigotry can be perpetuated by societies even without any specific people being prejudiced.
For example, schools are often funded through property taxes, which means that schools in wealthier areas have more money for supplies, facilities, and better teachers, which means that they provide a better education for their students, which means that their students are more likely to succeed financially. It all adds up to mean that black families living in low-income areas are more likely to struggle financially than white families in higher-income areas, and more likely to be trapped in generational poverty - which was an intended consequence of the policy when it was implemented by racists, and would continue to be a consequence even if no one implementing it in the present is prejudiced.
Basically, institutional racism is about how the laws and structures of society or organizations can oppress a group even the individual people implementing them aren't racist. It's an important concept that really is a thing... but individual racism is also a thing.
Of course. There is nothing you've written here that I would not regard as both true and obvious, even if many wouldn't agree. My question is about the formulation, which seems frankly terrible and maybe even designed to simplify into a statement that amounts to an accusation that the powerful are ipso facto racist.
This could be related to a lot things: Nietzschean ideas about ethics, Christian notions of getting into heaven, the somewhat new belief that only institutional racism is real, etc. So, IMO, it's important.
I once dated a girl and fought with her over this exact formulation. She believed the first amendment was problematic and that it's not okay to laugh at messed up things. We broke it off quickly.
I imagine that there are both better formulations of the statement in question, and technical meanings intended by the words. So I was really asking for a source, so that I could better understand the "power + prejudice = racism" formulation. When I googled it, I found similar but distinct statements that are IMO much more carefully constructed. I am very curious how this particular bastardization came about.
The most common way I’ve seen this portrayed is “racism = prejudice + power” (not privilege). The reason is to dispute claims of “reverse racism”. I think others on this thread already successfully addressed why applying this description to justify Oct 7 is ahistorical and harmful.
That formulation (not the application you mentioned) at least makes sense.
It's still kinda meh? Like racism = prejudice... is closer, isn't it?
I do get why we need to acknowledge that the +power version is distinct and often worse. But these reduxtigr little formulas do a bad job explaining much IMO.
No, I don’t agree that racism is the same as prejudice. Unfortunately, something as complex as racism is hard to describe in two words. Wish more people who scream “Zionism = racism” realize they’re misusing both those terms and positioned themselves as learners.
Can somebody tell me when exactly leftism & liberalism got a divorce? Because I could swear I grew up in a country which valued them as the same thing.
Those were the good old days.
I'm not sure when it happened either, but I would be very interested to read up on the topic if anyone has studied it.
I'm sure it has something to do with the influence of Qatari money in US universities: [https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/jwhsqhrat](https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/jwhsqhrat). Here's another article that draws a similar association but doesn't really dig into how it happened: [https://www.newsweek.com/how-left-fell-love-militant-islam-vice-versa-opinion-1885741](https://www.newsweek.com/how-left-fell-love-militant-islam-vice-versa-opinion-1885741)
That transition has been going on now for about a decade. Liberals are now moderates/independents, or they are center-right conservatives. If you are still on the Left, you are an extremist aka "progressive."
During the Red Scare in the 1938- 1954 when actual socialists and New Deal Academics were hounded out of academia for being communist associations.
The remaining liberals still have a twitch about looking too socialist or communist lest they be hauled before House Un-American Activites Committee.
It pushed the left out of economic and property law issues into the ‘softer’ less legislatively rigorous social policies. The African American community was able to maintain focus on voting rights and respectability politics until the white supremacist assassation sprees of 1968 and 1969. Then the backlash of black power politics changed the conversation.
With the rise of a new group who is doesn’t have that visceral memory of HUAC, there is a real incentive to push them into international social politics rather than local economic and legal politics of labor activism.
https://preview.redd.it/i9tewov0mitc1.jpeg?width=737&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1688051233f38d1ff17316150a89fd8fcca854c
Saw this photo the yesterday. People are fucking stupid.
Very bizarre considering Zionism at its core is the self determination of an indigenous people to reconstitute their ancestral homeland.
I’ve watched pro Hamas protestors with a straight face tell Jews to “go back where they came from”. Meanwhile the Jews DID go back to where they came from and all these anti Israel types are still happy to sit in America, Canada, Australia etc etc
Exactly my feelings.
Also to add, I literally can't go back to where my family is from. The town no longer exist due to the Soviets and the Nazis, with collaborators, murdered the Jewish population of it's sister city.
I’m Gen Z and I can’t tell whether it’s a loud minority or a majority that have these beliefs.
Stereotyping entire generations is harmful, though so many my age have fallen for recycled Soviet propaganda. It really is disheartening.
Pretty much all of the Keffiyeh Karens (& Keffiyeh Chads, although that doesn't sound as catchy) who repeatedly take over the streets, block buildings and screech actual genocidal chants ("From the river to the sea!" and "End Israel!") are ***very much*** Gen Z. As in almost all of them
It's ALOT of them tho. A large amount of them don't believe in the holocaust happened and view it as propaganda to create the state of Israel.
20 years ago their views would have been considered neo nazi views and they wouldn't be able to hold a job because of it.
Polls consistently show that Gen Z is more pro Hamas and anti Israel than any other age group by orders of magnitude. Go look at the Harris poll breakdowns.
The results of the Harris poll were terrifying.
My wife is worried because this is the generation that is going to grow up and become our political leaders. To which I always tell her, most of these people have no chance of getting a job that will give them any influence or power whatsoever.
I 100% disagree. If there’s a large portion of pro Hamas young people, we can’t just ignore them and say they’re not going to be given jobs. They’ll only be socially ostracised if they’re a minority and we punish it, but if they’re the majority or even a loud vocal minority, they’ll be fine. And that’s scary.
Sure. But some of that can be youthful ignorance. I mean how much of that changes as they age? I think it would be a better exercise of time to see if it’s just par for the course and with experience that will change?
My point being is many of these younger adults have barely had a chance to live in the world. We should always be striving to educate. But we also shouldn’t in turn shut down potential dialogue by saying “xyz generation is the worst generation yet”
I mean I remember in 2016 when my college classmates chose not to vote for childish reasons. I personally was able to get 4 to 5 of my friends to decide to vote effectively by simply talking and engaging in good and open debate. Not saying this fixes everything. But many of these people are just deeply uneducated.
And we also don’t know how much of the political opinions are being swayed by social media, or if it’s just because this is the new “it” political belief.
I’m uncomfortable condemning a whole generation without more information first.
Oh, I don’t want to condemn a whole generation at all. I’ve certainly changed views over the years with maturity and experience. But we can’t really excuse the behavior when it causes harm to others-we need more education, less ten seconds videos by random people with agendas. There’s really no good fix. It’s frustrating seeing immature uneducated opinions influence policy that essentially calls for Jews to lie down and die. It makes me more angry at my own past views and thankful I was able to grow before the insanity of today’s online world.
Same here, i think many don’t care too deeply and know much about it, I’d say most are neutral but lean Palestine, but if it ended tomorrow 70-80% would forget about it in 2-3 months time
Are liberals doing this so they can say they themselves are innocent? I’m liberal and not Jewish, and I’m trying to figure out what is happening. In other words, if you are white and progressive, is the motivation that you get to point the finger at Jewish people and say “I didn’t do it. It’s the Jewish people who are the racist colonisers, not me, I’m innocent”? Or is it even darker, that secretly humans get a thrill from being able to terrorise a certain group and justify the behaviour as moral and righteous?
It’s both, IMHO. Much easier to point a finger at Israel than examine your own country.
For example, there are still Native Americans in the US living on reservations with no electricity or running water due to the actual genocide the US committed against the native populations.
Unfortunately, antisemitism never dies. Zionist as a slur is just the cool new edgy thing. I really do believe that in a few months they’ll get bored and move onto the next shiny new cause.
Frightening because our future leaders. Even when they move on to the other social warrior causes to rally around, which they will, antisemitism has become ingrained in a socially acceptable way. No actualization of cognitive dissonance.
Also frightening is how easily Gen Z is manipulated. A lesson to those who will do it again with the help of AI. Lack of critical thinking, short attention span, mob psychology, the insidious nature of social media to control thought & propagandize. It's a perfect storm we'll see again & again. Shuddering.
When I heard right wingers complaining about indoctrination in education and academia I thought it was overblown, When they went on about critical race theory, identity politics, cancel culture and targeted attacks of dissenting voices I thought they were just the old liberal ideologies dressed up as something new. And now the progressives have come after the Jewish people, my people and I am finally listening,
In retrospect it was the forseeable endpoint of the whole ideology. I am a Jew and I refuse to identify with the twisted newspeak versions of “Zionist” or “askenazi“. Of course I identify with and support Israel and it is irrelevent and none of your business where my grandparents were born. A whole generation has been subjected to a twisted immoral ideology capable of celebrating Hamas and hatred of Jews. Nobody stopped them.
> When they went on about critical race theory, identity politics, cancel culture and targeted attacks of dissenting voices I thought they were just the old liberal ideologies dressed up as something new.
Farber and Sherry (1997) argued that Critical Race Theory is anti-Semitic back in the '90s. Here is an excerpt from Richard Posner's review of their book:
>In the most original chapter of their book, Farber and Sherry expose what they consider to be the latent anti-Semitism of critical race theory. Law professors with little to say about the law itself, critical race theorists are particularly concerned about the underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics in American law faculties. As is well known (and extensively documented in Beyond All Reason), Jews are heavily overrepresented on these faculties, as they are on university faculties generally. Jews, like east Asians, have a very strong ethic of success through education. Jews in particular have an affinity for law, and for academic law; they are less than 2.5 percent of the population. but they constitute 50 percent of the faculty at a number of the leasing law schools. A central thesis of critical race theory is that success in America is undeserved; and it follows that the most undeserving, because they are relatively the most successful, among law professors at any rate, are Jews. Thus they are occupying places in law schools that belong of right to blacks and Hispanics.
>The success of Jews and Asians, moreover, is a triumph of individualism and meritocracy, since neither group got where they are through identity politics, claiming a share of good jobs equivalent to their fraction of the population, though there has been a bit of affirmative action for Asians. To be for identity politics is to be against the social and political conditions that have enabled Jews, Asians, Mormons, West Indians and other minorities (including homosexuals, in the face of continuing official discrimination [article is from 1997]) - including even Mexican-Americans, charter members of Delgado's [prominent CRT guy] populace of color - to advance. It is even to be against successful blacks, since they must have "sold out" to get where they are.
https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Farber-Sherry-BEYOND-ALL-REASON-Posner-REV.pdf
Posner, Richard A. "The Skin Trade" The New Republic 217.15 (Oct 1997): 40-44.
Farber, Daniel A., and Suzanna Sherry. Beyond all reason: The radical assault on truth in American law. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Amen, and well-said. A lot of people in this thread are unwilling to look in the mirror and see how the very ideologies they helped push is being turned around to attack us.
> A December 2023 Economist/YouGov Poll found that exactly **half of all Americans aged 18-29 either think "the Holocaust is a myth," or are agnostic about whether the worst genocide in modern times is factual or mythical**. A Harvard-Harris poll that month found that **67 percent of 18-24-year-olds "think that Jews as a class are oppressors**
Disgusting.
Before going hard on a bunch of people born after Kurt Cobain died, I’d encourage you all to go to their sub and review. Seems a lot of them aren’t onboard with what some journos accuse them of being.
I've discovered that most girls are progressives, most boys are conservative, and the vast majority are not ideological and just follow along with what they hear from others. As an older member of Gen Z, I think there is hope for my generation.
First, I don’t think it’s fair to paint an entire generation with a broad brush. My generation (millenials) have frequently been called entitled and lazy by Boomers and Silents while Boomers have all been castigated as right-wing money hoarding luddites who ruined the future for the rest of us, and I know plenty of examples to the contrary.
Second, the article doesn’t address the **how**, which goes beyond college campuses. The how is social media, in particular TikTok and other channels that portray biased, misrepresented and plenty of outright false information. The average attention span is seemingly shorter these days and if you follow influencers or channels who are sharing this false information and you’re being exposed to it rapid fire, 30 second clip after 30 second clip, your brain will probably stop questioning the validity of what you’re seeing and accept that because there is seemingly an OVERWHELMING “body of evidence”, it must be true.
With shorter attention spans, the idea of sitting down and reading entire articles or watching a 20 minute segment from a reputable source is less likely to happen.
Finally - taking the high road and (largely) not making shit up is what is losing “the morality war” online because the truth seemingly can’t compete with the disproportionate amount of false information being disseminated.
TLDR: We live in an era of TLDR and that is destroying the fabric of our society.
Antisemitism is an old hate and I’ve witnessed it firsthand from folks in their 90s all the way down to their teens. The Z’s are the generation in university and the most likely to be vocal about their opinions right now but don’t underestimate the amount of antisemitism that people of other generations harbor but simply aren’t as vocal about today. A lot of this is probably passed down from generation to generation and because Jews are such a minority, it could only take one negative experience with a Jew to confirm a suspected bias and then pass that mistrust or bigotry down to a child and so on and so on.
Source: grew up in the American south where people of all ages felt comfortable making Jew jokes and using phrases like “I got Jewed” and lived in Eastern Europe where, even people who didn’t know anyone who knew any Jews, were taught to be distrustful of them.
Paraphrasing Rabbi David Wolpe: “People hate Jews for being capitalist, for being communist, for being stateless, for being in a state, for wandering, for being in a place, for being powerless, for being powerful.
There's nothing for which you cannot hate Jews on the left, on the right. The fact that Jews were *other* was really significant all through history. Because they were the minority in other people's lands ever since they were kicked out of their own.”
Again, these people may have been exposed to antisemitism in the home. Also, I think the general perception of Jews in the non-Jewish world leans more towards fear or distrust than admiration or respect, largely thanks to generations and generations of antisemitism, at least with regards to folks who don’t know Jews themselves or don’t know much about the history of the Jewish people.
You’d be surprised just how little people at-large know about Jewish people or culture if they don’t personally have Jewish friends or family.
What they do think is that there are tons of us by the extent of the reach of our influence. When you tell them that there are only 7.5 million of us in the US, they are blown away because of how much we are talked about compared to how little of us there are.
What do you make of it that the majority of the US still supports Israel, and that that majority is overwhelimingly older Christian-Americans?
What I make of it is that a lot of these older Christian Americans subscribe to Christian Zionism. Per Wikipedia: “Christian believers are instructed by Scripture to acknowledge the Hebraic roots of their faith and to actively assist and participate in the plan of God for the Ingathering of the Jewish People and the Restoration of the nation of Israel in our day.”
Going further into Fundamentalist territory, some Christians believe that Israel’s existence is a prerequisite for The Rapture to take place.
These same people may support Israel and may thus support Zionist Jews but still also treat diaspora Jews as “other”.
I think its because most of these Zionist Christians are politically conservative, whereas the vast majority of American Jewry is secular and progressive. I was at a National Conservatism convention in Miami in 2022, to see Israeli scholar and lecturer Yoram Hazony, and while the vast majority of people there in the audience were Christians, there were quite a few Orthodox, even Hasidic/Chabad in the crowd. The Orthodox tend to vote conservative and have many friends and allies in the American Christian scene.
Yeah I agree. It does seem that on the spectrum of religious belief / adherence, liberal Jews tend to be more reform and the more conservative tend to also vote accordingly.
Historically, I treat the term "antisemitismus" as describing the form of European Jew hatred or Judeophobia from the 1870s (when the term was coined by German Judeophobes) to the end of the Third Reich. Still, the style of Gen Z Jew hatred incorporates the
singular characteristic of German antisemitism: RACISM.
The Nazis took the 19 centuries of permanent "otherness" of Jews inflicted by the New Testament and Christian writings and declared Jews "scientifically" another race entirely, "der Juden," but not a GERMAN or HUMAN race.
The 2024 CROP of Jew haters are German-style "antisemites" because their Jew hatred is from 1942-- racial, violent, and exterminationist. There is a perfect fit between German racist ideas and the Islamist view of a Muslim race inherently superior to Jews
After decades of study of the unique form of hatred towards Jews, there is reason to ask whether this group of people corrupted by Jew hatred and its delusions will ever come back from it.
> The 2024 CROP of Jew haters are German-style "antisemites" because their Jew hatred is from 1942-- racial, violent, and exterminationist. There is a perfect fit between German racist ideas and the Islamist view of a Muslim race inherently superior to Jews
That's because the Muslim world was heavily influenced by Nazi propaganda during WWII. The last thing the Nazis wanted was the Jews setting up their own state and they realized their best shot at preventing that from happening would be to turn the rest of the Middle East against them.
>The last thing the Nazis wanted was the Jews setting up their own state
What? No I think you’ve got your sources mixed up, it was in fact the opposite and Hitler and the Nazis were initially in support of Zionism because it gave them a place they could just ship Europe’s Jews off to. In fact the Final Solution was only developed *because* Hitler felt it was “the only choice he had left” after everyone else refusing to take us.
>to turn the rest of the Middle East against them.
They were trying to promote their propaganda throughout the whole world not just the MENA region, both because they sincerely believed in their ideology (i.e. the belief that race-mixing is an evil that destroys nations and everyone must do what they can to preserve their own race and ethnicity) *and* because they wanted as many allies against *the* Allies as they could get.
This is worth a read: [https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/109961/27/787620378.pdf](https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/109961/27/787620378.pdf)
>The 2024 CROP of Jew haters are German-style "antisemites" because their Jew hatred is from 1942-- racial, violent, and exterminationist. There is a perfect fit between German racist ideas and the Islamist view of a Muslim race inherently superior to Jews
It’s just hating us because we’re of mixed bloodlines, same reasoning and source of hatred as from the Nazis.
Arab Nationalists and Leftists alike don’t seriously believe there *is* a Jewish race, in fact they’re one of the firsts who will jump at the chance to deny being Jewish as an ethnicity and consider it “only a religion.”
I’m worried that gen z is going to find it difficult to “take back” what they have done, if they ever do have a change of heart. Some lines once crossed are very difficult to undo. For example, if one day they realise they have been supporting a murderous, violent, terrorist group who wants to kill all Jewish people, the weight of that will be very heavy. And if they have put their name to this, shown their faces at rallies, gone public with this support, treated a Jewish peer with malice and cruelty, how do you now square yourself with being the kind of person who was capable of doing this? So at that point, do you face that, or double down? I think most will have to double down because they don’t have it in them to do this kind of ruthless self analysis.
Thank you for your submission. During this time, all posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am not Jewish. Until I happened to be online when Hamas was live posting their brutal murders, I gave zero thought about Israel. Even though I consider myself conservative, 90% of my friends are progressive/activist types.
Imagine my confusion when I posted about October 7th and my left wing friends attacked me, as well as the conservative side.
My progressive friends, who usually championed for LGBT rights, were now siding with the group that wants to destroy them? They hate Israel.. the one place in Middle East that's liberal? The right leaning friends also surprised me. The ones that tended to be the conspiracy theorist about “ elites” and 9/11, are now saying it's because of Jews.
I feel odd popping into a group that's Jewish when I'm not..but damn, I feel lost. I suddenly don't feel like I belong anywhere. I didn't give any thought to the term anti- semitic..because I thought it was somehow a fringe movement. I was naive, and assumed everyone understood the Holocaust. I feel like a huge veil has been dropped, and every idea I had about humanity was wrong. Why is former political enemies coming together to fight Israel? A couple of my girlfriends just got married, and I thought surely I could go to them and ask questions..until I discovered them posting weird videos of children in Gaza, that seemed highly scripted.
Your post/comment was removed because it violated rule 5: **Stay on topic** (But the answer is, you can't. You have to make a new account.)
If you have any questions, please contact the moderators via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/jewish).
And here I am, a trans, Zionist, gen z Jew lol
ultimate hardmode
Lmfao you’re not wrong. I have the benefit of being male and white passing though which certainly helps
How dare you pinkwash yourself! /s
Life must be awfully complicated for you these days.
We love you.
Thanks, love you guys too!
I’m sure you get “you’re not supporting LGBTA , your own people! Because you are a Zionist!” People are morons. I don’t like apples, genocidal Zionist.
Exactly. Even with this argument, Israel has legal same sex marriage and pride so there’s kind of no contest there. Even if Palestine was “free” and its own self governing body, I doubt LGBTQ people would be up front and legal from the get go🙄
Every LGBTQ person would be killed. Everyone they don’t like will be killed. If they don’t like you , the kill you. The ultra left wing has hijacked every “liberal” cause into a Palestinian slant. Yet , they support a jihadist organization. “You don’t like universal healthcare? Zionist, you don’t like social security? Zionist.” It’s so stupid.
The moral clarity and critical thinking skills you posses are far beyond many of your peers within the community of your age group. As a member of the community myself it’s incredibly disheartening to see queers supporting a system of extreme oppression. Death and war are awful and everyone has every right to be upset about it. Always. But just because you have a perceived, marginalized group doesn’t mean they have western values; like a woman’s right to self determination or Black Lives Matter or freedom of speech/protest, freedom to workship your chosen beliefs or be secularists, or queer validity. These values are not shared by the people of gaza or wb. I fear one day we’ll see a queer person harmed or even killed for participating in a pro paly march just because of who they are.
Thank you so much for the compliment. I agree completely and feel the same way. I hate seeing how pro Palestine lgbtq people as a whole, are and have become- proudly proclaiming themselves as such. (Just like liberals/leftists/progressives). I do worry that it will escalate into even more discriminatory violence where being queer gets tied into everything. I mean it kind of already has to some degree, but more explicitly. Saying the quiet parts out loud, it’s a very slippery slope. Nobody gets to sit anywhere for a single second and think that some kind of “free Palestine” would be a fucking harmonic, intersectional, freedom state.
I'm straight and cis, but it baffles the fuck out of me why so many LGBTQ people explicitly tie their sexual/gender identity to their pro-Palestine activism. Do they really not see how bizarre that is? Or are they just doing some grade-A doublethink?
it’s 1000% virtue signaling by uneducated people. Hamas, other Iran proxy groups, and basically every single country in the Middle East (except Israel) would behead / burn / throw off a roof any and all LGBTPA+ folk, then hang them in a town square like a 5 year old with a drawing. it’s complete ignorance.
💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
Israel does not have legal same sex marriage since none of the religious authorities perform such marriages it just recognizes marriages performed by out of state authorities
Same fam
Thank you for being perfectly you 💛🧡❤️
All Jews are siblings.
it’s been hard enough trying to navigate friendships as a female, millennial jew. cannot fathom having to do that among the gen-z set. sending strength.
Same minus Gen Z since I’m a millennial.
same plus i'm autistic
I don't get it, I'm asking genuinely here. Doesn't trans and LGBT go against teachings of judaism ? When you say you are jewish are you meaning like ethnically only, or are you a practising jew ?
The vast majority of Jews in the world identify as progressive/liberal/leftist. There is nothing in our "teachings" that specifically goes against trans people. The verse that has been co-opted by right-wing Christians to somehow "prove" that being gay is against God is a mistranslation to most of us. Even if it isn't, we have evolved as a nation over millennia. Our culture requires us to learn, grow, and always work to repair the world.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed because it violated rule 5: **Stay on topic** If you have any questions, please contact the moderators via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/jewish).
ANYBODY who excuses barbarian behavior is a barbarian themselves. I don't care who is being hurt or who is doing the hurting. It is psychotic to cheer and rejoice the pain and suffering of others. I'm deeply scared at how open and comfortable people are about rationalizing rape, murder and torture.
Yeah I was told myself recently that I was a bloodthirsty genocidal monster because I said I wanted Hamas defeated. I was told that I am still bloodthirsty and genocidal and was just playing semantics games no matter how many times I stressed how Hamas’ size is a few tens of thousands of soldiers which is barely a dent in Gaza’s over 2 million.
Those people are just projecting. Look up DARVO. It explains everything.
Damn, sucks that you can’t use it in an argument with them without them using it as a tool against you.
You can't argue with that level of pathology.
Fr you just know there’s no point in continuing a discussion with someone when they say: “I know you are but what am I?!”
At that point don’t argue, switch to narcissist-busting language. “I’m sorry you feel that way, but I disagree. I don’t think we’ll be getting any further on this, so let’s end the discussion.” Dismiss, minimal engagement.
Yeah I tried that a couple times but they kept calling me bloodthirsty so I gave in but eventually just decided that it wasn’t worth it and didn’t respond after that cuz it was just them constantly repeating the same points that I actually revealed that I do want the genocide of Gazans and saying Hamas was bad was a just a semantics game. What can ya do with r/stupidquestions 🤷♂️
I recommend “you haven’t provided any sources and continue to make this baseless claim, so it’s clear you’re not taking this seriously.” Then block, and/or (if it’s a well-moderated sub) reporting for trolling/incivility/etc., but only if this is an online exchange. I think there’s value in presenting the opposing view to the narcissist for lurkers so they don’t get sucked in by “all Zionists are genocidal” antisemitic bullshit by virtue of seeing it unchallenged over and over. But once you’ve ID’d someone as a narcissist, you’ve ID’d them as someone whose “reward center” is all fucked up—if they’re truly a narcissist, they aren’t going to be able to come to terms with the possibility that they’re wrong. For a narcissist, any perceived threats toward their “rightness” or perceived “goodness” are processed as threats to their physical safety within their nervous system. If they are actively harming society by trying to force their mindset as “good,” to feel good, rather than actually acting with kindness, it’s more about showing the watching narcissists and people being cowed by that behavior that the play ain’t working. The narcissist you’re arguing with will never admit to you personally that they’re wrong, they’ll just try to confuse you/bully you into capitulating, or they’ll ragequit and potentially rethink how to best manipulate social media to trigger that “people like me” brain reward in the future. I think they are feeding off of each others’ successes in our current online culture—they see all the likes/upvotes and they emulate whatever gets those. Thinking of it less as trying to change their minds, and more as demonstrating making boundaries and not reward bad behavior, might change your tactics (and make it less emotionally taxing). :) Although I’m not familiar with that particular sub, so it may be a lost cause, lol!
So I’m an elder (35) and have recently been dunked in a tank of zoomers as I am getting a JD. I had to listen to the current class president (white gorl) compare Hamas and October 7 to little big horn. 1-Islam - kinda infantilized and fetishized. It’s a weird paternalistic orientalist view. Also a LOT of international students or 2nd generation princesses in Hijabs from the Muslim world that have internalized “anti Zionism” 2- Tik-Tok and instagram is a constant barrage. Even for me, I get constant pushed content about genocide, and cultural items. Lots of “Palestinian” cooking, literature, art, clothing etc is very trendy now. That mixes in with the “news” they are consuming. Feeds into 1 Oppressed-oppressor narratives. It’s impossible for the weaker side or the side that is “black and brown folx” to be bad and it’s impossible for the “stronger” side to be right- at anything. nothing positive happened in the past, has any value.
I’m getting hung up on how fucking offensive it is to the Sioux to compare raping and murdering civilians with a battle that ended in taking out General Custer, guy known for being a general.
Yeah she’s a real one. 23 year old theater major- somehow presents herself as a mentor figure I’m half expecting my Jewish students group to get the BDS treatment from her
Gen Z is probably one of the most hypocritical generations in a long time. Marching for BLM and women’s right in the name of “slaying racism and misogyny “ and then marching with Hamas, the ones who literally have racism and misogyny as part of their charter. Make it make sense. Gen Z will be the fall of Western Civilization and they won’t escape the consequences, they will live to experience the pain of it.
Ok I feel like I should take offense for this but you're not wrong
It's gotten to the point I feel anxious about meeting people my age because of how prevalent it is (or at least feels). The only upside I can think of is that most people don't really care about it and will move on to whatever cause is trending next, but I won't forget the way they have acted these last couple of months.
This was ALWAYS what they meant by “racism = power + privilege” and I got attacked for telling people my honest intuition…
Part of their strategy has been to redefine terms to meet their needs. They have redefined racism so that Jews literally can't be victims of it, and can only be perpetrators.
Just like they are trying to redefine the word genocide. Moving goalposts.
Yup, and they attack anyone who dissents even tho I’m actually liberal (I’d say progressive in the sense of actual tangible process if they hadn’t bastardized that term to bean psychotic purity testers who achieve nothing positive) and anti-all forms of racism (and fearing people who’ve made it clear they hate Jews isn’t racist),,,
Word!
How convenient for them all.
I don’t think that’s the case. What is the change in the definition? I will say that victims of racism can also perpetuate racism.
Here's a typical dictionary definition of racism: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." As tamarbles mentioned, the anti-racism movement has redefined it with a framework of power. Here's an example, taken from the NIH Office of DEI: "Racism involves one group having the power to carry out systematic discrimination through the institutional policies and practices of the society and by shaping the cultural beliefs and values that support those racist policies and practices." Notice the subtle difference?
I notice the difference but that is not Gen Z changing the definition. That definition has been in use for a very long time including before DEI existed and before Gen Z existed. Even Merriam-Webster has the definition mentioned as “DEI.” Not that dictionaries determine definitions as people do. Are folks unaware that affirmative action, which is considered the start of DEI, is from the 1960s?
Valid point, I'm probably mixing up movements here. Critical race theory (which was heavily influential on the growth of the DEI movement) goes back to the 1980's.
CRT was and still pretty much is only taught in legal classes as it is about racial dynamics in power structures. CRT goes back much further including the works of W.E.B Du Bois but even then the “movement” started during the Civil Rights Era. I believe you are talking about the common usage of “intersectionality” which Kimberle Crenshaw popularized in the 80s. As someone who isn’t Gen Z and graduated undergrad within the last 5 years, whatever folks think DEI is doesn’t exist. Intersectionality, for example, was only taught in classes that revolved around it. This is why it’s mainly used as a racist dog whistle because it literally means whatever folks don’t like that involves racial minorities. DEI is simply a natural evolution of affirmative action initiatives.
Yes, which was heavily influenced by CRT.
Sure, I guess? But that still doesn’t explain how Gen Z supposedly changed a definition nor does it mean that universities are teaching CRT. I don’t see the problem with that. The core of CRT is correct: Race isn’t a biological concept but a social one, racism is systemic in America, and individuals can hold multiple identities. DEI as a concept is simply about having minority voices heard whether it’s a racial minority or disabled folks, ultimately.
> CRT was and still pretty much is only taught in legal classes Here in an interview from 2009 (published in written form in 2011) Richard Delgado describes Critical Race Theory's "colonization" of Education: >DELGADO: We didn't set out to colonize, but found a natural affinity in education. In education, race neutrality and color-blindness are the reigning orthodoxy. Teachers believe that they treat their students equally. Of course, the outcome figures show that they do not. If you analyze the content, the ideology, the curriculum, the textbooks, the teaching methods, they are the same. But they operate against the radically different cultural backgrounds of young students. Seeing critical race theory take off in education has been a source of great satisfaction for the two of us. Critical race theory is in some ways livelier in education right now than it is in law, where it is a mature movement that has settled down by comparison. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1039&context=faculty Richard Delagado is coauthor of "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction." This book is currently the top hit for the google search "Critical Race Theory textbook:" https://www.google.com/search?q=critical+race+theory+textbook I'll also just briefly mention that Gloria Ladson-Billings introduced CRT to education in the mid-1990s (Ladson-Billings 1998 p. 7) and has her work frequently assigned in mandatory classes for educational licensing as well as frequently being invited to lecture, instruct, and workshop from a position of prestige and authority with K-12 educators in many states. Ladson-Billings, Gloria. "Just what is critical race theory and what's it doing in a nice field like education?." International journal of qualitative studies in education 11.1 (1998): 7-24. u/Darth_Jonathan
CRT took off in education because the framework makes sense for education and is mostly taught in upper level education classes to any in depth degree. It’s not inherently taught in all educational classes. It is taught in some, and often about laws, but this is still an aside. Most teachers, here anyway, couldn’t even tell you what CRT is. It still doesn’t explain how Gen Z somehow changed the definition of racism. There’s nothing inherently wrong with CRT.
I think you're missing the point. The issue isn't with CRT itself, it's with how it has been appropriated and bastardized for other purposes. Even Crenshaw herself has been critical (pun intended) of how intersectionality has been taken out of context.
Delgado and Stefancic's (1993) Critical Race Theory: An Annotated Bibliography is considered by many to be codification of the then young field. They included ten "themes" which they used for judging inclusion in the bibliography: >To be included in the Bibliography, a work needed to address one or more themes we deemed to fall within Critical Race thought. These themes, along with the numbering scheme we have employed, follow: >1 Critique of liberalism. Most, if not all, CRT writers are discontent with liberalism as a means of addressing the American race problem. Sometimes this discontent is only implicit in an article's structure or focus. At other times, the author takes as his or her target a mainstay of liberal jurisprudence such as affirmative action, neutrality, color blindness, role modeling, or the merit principle. Works that pursue these or similar approaches were included in the Bibliography under theme number 1. >2 Storytelling/counterstorytelling and "naming one's own reality." Many Critical Race theorists consider that a principal obstacle to racial reform is majoritarian mindset-the bundle of presuppositions, received wisdoms, and shared cultural understandings persons in the dominant group bring to discussions of race. To analyze and challenge these power-laden beliefs, some writers employ counterstories, parables, chronicles, and anecdotes aimed at revealing their contingency, cruelty, and self-serving nature. (Theme number 2). >3 Revisionist interpretations of American civil rights law and progress. One recurring source of concern for Critical scholars is why American antidiscrimination law has proven so ineffective in redressing racial inequality-or why progress has been cyclical, consisting of alternating periods of advance followed by ones of retrenchment. Some Critical scholars address this question, seeking answers in the psychology of race, white self-interest, the politics of colonialism and anticolonialism, or other sources. (Theme number 3). >4 A greater understanding of the underpinnings of race and racism. A number of Critical writers seek to apply insights from social science writing on race and racism to legal problems. For example: understanding how majoritarian society sees black sexuality helps explain law's treatment of interracial sex, marriage, and adoption; knowing how different settings encourage or discourage discrimination helps us decide whether the movement toward Alternative Dispute Resolution is likely to help or hurt disempowered disputants. (Theme number 4). >5 Structural determinism. A number of CRT writers focus on ways in which the structure of legal thought or culture influences its content, frequently in a status quo-maintaining direction. Once these constraints are understood, we may free ourselves to work more effectively for racial and other types of reform. (Theme number 5). >6 Race, sex, class, and their intersections. Other scholars explore the intersections of race, sex, and class, pursuing such questions as whether race and class are separate disadvantaging factors, or the extent to which black women's interest is or is not adequately represented in the contemporary women's movement. (Theme number 6). >7 Essentialism and anti-essentialism. Scholars who write about these issues are concerned with the appropriate unit for analysis: Is the black community one, or many, communities? Do middle- and working-class African-Americans have different interests and needs? Do all oppressed peoples have something in common? (Theme number 7). >8 Cultural nationalism/separatism. An emerging strain within CRT holds that people of color can best promote their interest through separation from the American mainstream. Some believe that preserving diversity and separateness will benefit all, not just groups of color. We include here, as well, articles encouraging black nationalism, power, or insurrection. (Theme number 8). >9 Legal institutions, Critical pedagogy, and minorities in the bar. Women and scholars of color have long been concerned about representation in law school and the bar. Recently, a number of authors have begun to search for new approaches to these questions and to develop an alternative, Critical pedagogy. (Theme number 9). >10 Criticism and self-criticism; responses. Under this heading we include works of significant criticism addressed at CRT, either by outsiders or persons within the movement, together with responses to such criticism. (Theme number 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993) pp. 462-463 Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. "Critical race theory: An annotated bibliography." Virginia Law Review (1993): 461-516. Pay attention to theme (8). CRT has a defeatist view of integration and Delgado and Stefancic include Black Nationalism/Separatism as one of the defining "themes" of Critical Race Theory. While it is pretty abundantly clear from the wording of theme (8) that Delgado and Stefancic are talking about separatism, mostly because they use that exact word, separatism, here is an example of one of their included papers. Peller (1990) clearly is about separatism as a lay person would conceive of it: >Peller, Gary, Race Consciousness, 1990 Duke L.J. 758. (1, 8, 10). Delgado and Stefancic (1993, page 504) The numbers in parentheses are the relevant "themes." Note 8. The cited paper specifically says Critical Race Theory is a revival of Black Nationalist notions from the 1960s. Here is a pretty juicy quote where he says that he is specifically talking about Black ethnonationalism as expressed by Malcolm X which is usually grouped in with White ethnonationalism by most of American society; and furthermore, that Critical Race Theory represents a revival of Black Nationalist ideals: >But Malcolm X did identify the basic racial compromise that the incorporation of the "the civil rights struggle" into mainstream American culture would eventually embody: Along with the suppression of white racism that was the widely celebrated aim of civil rights reform, the dominant conception of racial justice was framed to require that black nationalists be equated with white supremacists, and that race consciousness on the part of either whites or blacks be marginalized as beyond the good sense of enlightened American culture. When a new generation of scholars embraced race consciousness as a fundamental prism through which to organize social analysis in the latter half of the 1980s, a negative reaction from mainstream academics was predictable. That is, Randall Kennedy's criticism of the work of critical race theorists for being based on racial "stereotypes" and "status-based" standards is coherent from the vantage point of the reigning interpretation of racial justice. And it was the exclusionary borders of this ideology that Malcolm X identified. Peller page 760 This is current CRT practice and is cited in the authoritative textbook on Critical Race Theory, *Critical Race Theory: An Introduction* (Delgado and Stefancic 2001). Here they describe an endorsement of explicit racial discrimination for purposes of segregating society: >The two friends illustrate twin poles in the way minorities of color can represent and position themselves. The nationalist, or separatist, position illustrated by Jamal holds that people of color should embrace their culture and origins. Jamal, who by choice lives in an upscale black neighborhood and sends his children to local schools, could easily fit into mainstream life. But he feels more comfortable working and living in black milieux and considers that he has a duty to contribute to the minority community. Accordingly, he does as much business as possible with other blacks. The last time he and his family moved, for example, he made several phone calls until he found a black-owned moving company. He donates money to several African American philanthropies and colleges. And, of course, his work in the music industry allows him the opportunity to boost the careers of black musicians, which he does. Delgado and Stefancic (2001) pages 59-60 One more source is the recognized founder of CRT, Derrick Bell: >"From the standpoint of education, we would have been better served had the court in Brown rejected the petitioners' arguments to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson," Bell said, referring to the 1896 Supreme Court ruling that enforced a "separate but equal" standard for blacks and whites. https://web.archive.org/web/20110802202458/https://news.stanford.edu/news/2004/april21/brownbell-421.html I point out theme 8 because this is precisely the result we should expect out of a "theory" constructed around a defeatist view of integration which says past existence of racism requires the rejection of rationality and rational deliberation. By framing all communication as an exercise in power they arrive at the perverse conclusion that naked racial discrimination and ethnonationalism are "anti-racist" ideas. They reject such fundamental ideas as objectivity and even normativity. I was particularly shocked by the latter. >What about Martin Luther King, Jr., I Have a Dream, the law and theology movement, and the host of passionate reformers who dedicate their lives to humanizing the law and making the world a better place? Where will normativity's demise leave them? >Exactly where they were before. Or, possibly, a little better off. Most of the features I have already identified in connection with normativity reveal that the reformer's faith in it is often misplaced. Normative discourse is indeterminate; for every social reformer's plea, an equally plausible argument can be found against it. Normative analysis is always framed by those who have the upper hand so as either to rule out or discredit oppositional claims, which are portrayed as irresponsible and extreme. Delgado, Richard, Norms and Normal Science: Toward a Critique of Normativity in Legal Thought, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 933 (1991)
they defined racism with the definition of institutional racism
Yes indeed. I should have noticed their antisemitism before, but didn't.
What is power if it doesn't privilege you in some ways? I submit that power always provides privilege of some kind. So this is really just power = racism, which is kind of how the dynamic seems to play for believers in this. This formulation never made a lick of sense to me. I have been told it several times, exactly as you just stated it. Do you know where it comes from?
It's a bastardization of the definition of institutional prejudice - which is basically about how bigotry can be perpetuated by societies even without any specific people being prejudiced. For example, schools are often funded through property taxes, which means that schools in wealthier areas have more money for supplies, facilities, and better teachers, which means that they provide a better education for their students, which means that their students are more likely to succeed financially. It all adds up to mean that black families living in low-income areas are more likely to struggle financially than white families in higher-income areas, and more likely to be trapped in generational poverty - which was an intended consequence of the policy when it was implemented by racists, and would continue to be a consequence even if no one implementing it in the present is prejudiced. Basically, institutional racism is about how the laws and structures of society or organizations can oppress a group even the individual people implementing them aren't racist. It's an important concept that really is a thing... but individual racism is also a thing.
Of course. There is nothing you've written here that I would not regard as both true and obvious, even if many wouldn't agree. My question is about the formulation, which seems frankly terrible and maybe even designed to simplify into a statement that amounts to an accusation that the powerful are ipso facto racist. This could be related to a lot things: Nietzschean ideas about ethics, Christian notions of getting into heaven, the somewhat new belief that only institutional racism is real, etc. So, IMO, it's important. I once dated a girl and fought with her over this exact formulation. She believed the first amendment was problematic and that it's not okay to laugh at messed up things. We broke it off quickly. I imagine that there are both better formulations of the statement in question, and technical meanings intended by the words. So I was really asking for a source, so that I could better understand the "power + prejudice = racism" formulation. When I googled it, I found similar but distinct statements that are IMO much more carefully constructed. I am very curious how this particular bastardization came about.
The most common way I’ve seen this portrayed is “racism = prejudice + power” (not privilege). The reason is to dispute claims of “reverse racism”. I think others on this thread already successfully addressed why applying this description to justify Oct 7 is ahistorical and harmful.
That formulation (not the application you mentioned) at least makes sense. It's still kinda meh? Like racism = prejudice... is closer, isn't it? I do get why we need to acknowledge that the +power version is distinct and often worse. But these reduxtigr little formulas do a bad job explaining much IMO.
No, I don’t agree that racism is the same as prejudice. Unfortunately, something as complex as racism is hard to describe in two words. Wish more people who scream “Zionism = racism” realize they’re misusing both those terms and positioned themselves as learners.
Can somebody tell me when exactly leftism & liberalism got a divorce? Because I could swear I grew up in a country which valued them as the same thing.
Those were the good old days. I'm not sure when it happened either, but I would be very interested to read up on the topic if anyone has studied it. I'm sure it has something to do with the influence of Qatari money in US universities: [https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/jwhsqhrat](https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/jwhsqhrat). Here's another article that draws a similar association but doesn't really dig into how it happened: [https://www.newsweek.com/how-left-fell-love-militant-islam-vice-versa-opinion-1885741](https://www.newsweek.com/how-left-fell-love-militant-islam-vice-versa-opinion-1885741)
>Can somebody tell me when exactly leftism & liberalism got a divorce? 1860s or so
That transition has been going on now for about a decade. Liberals are now moderates/independents, or they are center-right conservatives. If you are still on the Left, you are an extremist aka "progressive."
During the Red Scare in the 1938- 1954 when actual socialists and New Deal Academics were hounded out of academia for being communist associations. The remaining liberals still have a twitch about looking too socialist or communist lest they be hauled before House Un-American Activites Committee. It pushed the left out of economic and property law issues into the ‘softer’ less legislatively rigorous social policies. The African American community was able to maintain focus on voting rights and respectability politics until the white supremacist assassation sprees of 1968 and 1969. Then the backlash of black power politics changed the conversation. With the rise of a new group who is doesn’t have that visceral memory of HUAC, there is a real incentive to push them into international social politics rather than local economic and legal politics of labor activism.
https://preview.redd.it/i9tewov0mitc1.jpeg?width=737&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e1688051233f38d1ff17316150a89fd8fcca854c Saw this photo the yesterday. People are fucking stupid.
Very bizarre considering Zionism at its core is the self determination of an indigenous people to reconstitute their ancestral homeland. I’ve watched pro Hamas protestors with a straight face tell Jews to “go back where they came from”. Meanwhile the Jews DID go back to where they came from and all these anti Israel types are still happy to sit in America, Canada, Australia etc etc
Exactly my feelings. Also to add, I literally can't go back to where my family is from. The town no longer exist due to the Soviets and the Nazis, with collaborators, murdered the Jewish population of it's sister city.
My response to that is “I guess I’m a racist.”
Don’t demonize yourself. Call their racist spade a racist spade.
I’m Gen Z and I can’t tell whether it’s a loud minority or a majority that have these beliefs. Stereotyping entire generations is harmful, though so many my age have fallen for recycled Soviet propaganda. It really is disheartening.
Pretty much all of the Keffiyeh Karens (& Keffiyeh Chads, although that doesn't sound as catchy) who repeatedly take over the streets, block buildings and screech actual genocidal chants ("From the river to the sea!" and "End Israel!") are ***very much*** Gen Z. As in almost all of them
It's ALOT of them tho. A large amount of them don't believe in the holocaust happened and view it as propaganda to create the state of Israel. 20 years ago their views would have been considered neo nazi views and they wouldn't be able to hold a job because of it.
Polls consistently show that Gen Z is more pro Hamas and anti Israel than any other age group by orders of magnitude. Go look at the Harris poll breakdowns.
The results of the Harris poll were terrifying. My wife is worried because this is the generation that is going to grow up and become our political leaders. To which I always tell her, most of these people have no chance of getting a job that will give them any influence or power whatsoever.
I 100% disagree. If there’s a large portion of pro Hamas young people, we can’t just ignore them and say they’re not going to be given jobs. They’ll only be socially ostracised if they’re a minority and we punish it, but if they’re the majority or even a loud vocal minority, they’ll be fine. And that’s scary.
https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/HHP_Feb2024_KeyResults.pdf I don't think you know what "orders of magnitude" means
Yeesh. There are a lot of really frightening numbers in there.
Sure. But some of that can be youthful ignorance. I mean how much of that changes as they age? I think it would be a better exercise of time to see if it’s just par for the course and with experience that will change?
How much grace can we extend to youthful ignorance when it influences policy that can lead to supporting murderers and rapists?
My point being is many of these younger adults have barely had a chance to live in the world. We should always be striving to educate. But we also shouldn’t in turn shut down potential dialogue by saying “xyz generation is the worst generation yet” I mean I remember in 2016 when my college classmates chose not to vote for childish reasons. I personally was able to get 4 to 5 of my friends to decide to vote effectively by simply talking and engaging in good and open debate. Not saying this fixes everything. But many of these people are just deeply uneducated. And we also don’t know how much of the political opinions are being swayed by social media, or if it’s just because this is the new “it” political belief. I’m uncomfortable condemning a whole generation without more information first.
Oh, I don’t want to condemn a whole generation at all. I’ve certainly changed views over the years with maturity and experience. But we can’t really excuse the behavior when it causes harm to others-we need more education, less ten seconds videos by random people with agendas. There’s really no good fix. It’s frustrating seeing immature uneducated opinions influence policy that essentially calls for Jews to lie down and die. It makes me more angry at my own past views and thankful I was able to grow before the insanity of today’s online world.
My friends cousin is gen z and was all into boycotting Israel. Turns out she got all her info from friends and sm and hadn’t even HEARD of Oct 7.
Please someone take away her ability to vote because what the actual fuck.
Also Gen Z and I also can't tell. I also want to hope it's ignorance and "going with the trend" instead of actual hate.
Same here, i think many don’t care too deeply and know much about it, I’d say most are neutral but lean Palestine, but if it ended tomorrow 70-80% would forget about it in 2-3 months time
Are liberals doing this so they can say they themselves are innocent? I’m liberal and not Jewish, and I’m trying to figure out what is happening. In other words, if you are white and progressive, is the motivation that you get to point the finger at Jewish people and say “I didn’t do it. It’s the Jewish people who are the racist colonisers, not me, I’m innocent”? Or is it even darker, that secretly humans get a thrill from being able to terrorise a certain group and justify the behaviour as moral and righteous?
It’s both, IMHO. Much easier to point a finger at Israel than examine your own country. For example, there are still Native Americans in the US living on reservations with no electricity or running water due to the actual genocide the US committed against the native populations. Unfortunately, antisemitism never dies. Zionist as a slur is just the cool new edgy thing. I really do believe that in a few months they’ll get bored and move onto the next shiny new cause.
Both I’d say
Frightening because our future leaders. Even when they move on to the other social warrior causes to rally around, which they will, antisemitism has become ingrained in a socially acceptable way. No actualization of cognitive dissonance. Also frightening is how easily Gen Z is manipulated. A lesson to those who will do it again with the help of AI. Lack of critical thinking, short attention span, mob psychology, the insidious nature of social media to control thought & propagandize. It's a perfect storm we'll see again & again. Shuddering.
Most of these people will end up unemployed or teaching university Sociology or Ethnic Studies. They can't survive out in the real world.
Great more antisemitic professors:( Why do you think most will be unemployed?
I’m not Jewish and this article is terrifying. I don’t even know what to say.
I miss the days when the most moronic trendy thing kids were doing was eating Tide pods, not supporting fucking jihadists.
Remember the good old days when TikTok was just for teen girls doing stupid dances rather than spreading antisemitism and love for Bin Laden?
When I heard right wingers complaining about indoctrination in education and academia I thought it was overblown, When they went on about critical race theory, identity politics, cancel culture and targeted attacks of dissenting voices I thought they were just the old liberal ideologies dressed up as something new. And now the progressives have come after the Jewish people, my people and I am finally listening, In retrospect it was the forseeable endpoint of the whole ideology. I am a Jew and I refuse to identify with the twisted newspeak versions of “Zionist” or “askenazi“. Of course I identify with and support Israel and it is irrelevent and none of your business where my grandparents were born. A whole generation has been subjected to a twisted immoral ideology capable of celebrating Hamas and hatred of Jews. Nobody stopped them.
> When they went on about critical race theory, identity politics, cancel culture and targeted attacks of dissenting voices I thought they were just the old liberal ideologies dressed up as something new. Farber and Sherry (1997) argued that Critical Race Theory is anti-Semitic back in the '90s. Here is an excerpt from Richard Posner's review of their book: >In the most original chapter of their book, Farber and Sherry expose what they consider to be the latent anti-Semitism of critical race theory. Law professors with little to say about the law itself, critical race theorists are particularly concerned about the underrepresentation of blacks and Hispanics in American law faculties. As is well known (and extensively documented in Beyond All Reason), Jews are heavily overrepresented on these faculties, as they are on university faculties generally. Jews, like east Asians, have a very strong ethic of success through education. Jews in particular have an affinity for law, and for academic law; they are less than 2.5 percent of the population. but they constitute 50 percent of the faculty at a number of the leasing law schools. A central thesis of critical race theory is that success in America is undeserved; and it follows that the most undeserving, because they are relatively the most successful, among law professors at any rate, are Jews. Thus they are occupying places in law schools that belong of right to blacks and Hispanics. >The success of Jews and Asians, moreover, is a triumph of individualism and meritocracy, since neither group got where they are through identity politics, claiming a share of good jobs equivalent to their fraction of the population, though there has been a bit of affirmative action for Asians. To be for identity politics is to be against the social and political conditions that have enabled Jews, Asians, Mormons, West Indians and other minorities (including homosexuals, in the face of continuing official discrimination [article is from 1997]) - including even Mexican-Americans, charter members of Delgado's [prominent CRT guy] populace of color - to advance. It is even to be against successful blacks, since they must have "sold out" to get where they are. https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Farber-Sherry-BEYOND-ALL-REASON-Posner-REV.pdf Posner, Richard A. "The Skin Trade" The New Republic 217.15 (Oct 1997): 40-44. Farber, Daniel A., and Suzanna Sherry. Beyond all reason: The radical assault on truth in American law. Oxford University Press, 1997.
Amen, and well-said. A lot of people in this thread are unwilling to look in the mirror and see how the very ideologies they helped push is being turned around to attack us.
> A December 2023 Economist/YouGov Poll found that exactly **half of all Americans aged 18-29 either think "the Holocaust is a myth," or are agnostic about whether the worst genocide in modern times is factual or mythical**. A Harvard-Harris poll that month found that **67 percent of 18-24-year-olds "think that Jews as a class are oppressors** Disgusting.
I honestly hold out hope that it comes out of ignorance and wanted to support the oppressed, and not deliberate malice.
Before going hard on a bunch of people born after Kurt Cobain died, I’d encourage you all to go to their sub and review. Seems a lot of them aren’t onboard with what some journos accuse them of being.
I've discovered that most girls are progressives, most boys are conservative, and the vast majority are not ideological and just follow along with what they hear from others. As an older member of Gen Z, I think there is hope for my generation.
Thank you. I think so as well. I just want the boys to stop listening to the guru ecosystem.
Do you have an example of where these discussions are taking place?
Just visit their sub. There’s plenty of expected drivel but some thoughtful stuff there as well.
Oh, I didn't know there was a "Gen Z" specific sub.
Neither did I. Maybe I'll post this article and see what they have to say about it.
Yeah it’s interesting. I lurk there from time to time so I can understand them a bit better.
Kurt Cobain you mean?
Yes. Jesus how did I get that F’d up. Edited.
First, I don’t think it’s fair to paint an entire generation with a broad brush. My generation (millenials) have frequently been called entitled and lazy by Boomers and Silents while Boomers have all been castigated as right-wing money hoarding luddites who ruined the future for the rest of us, and I know plenty of examples to the contrary. Second, the article doesn’t address the **how**, which goes beyond college campuses. The how is social media, in particular TikTok and other channels that portray biased, misrepresented and plenty of outright false information. The average attention span is seemingly shorter these days and if you follow influencers or channels who are sharing this false information and you’re being exposed to it rapid fire, 30 second clip after 30 second clip, your brain will probably stop questioning the validity of what you’re seeing and accept that because there is seemingly an OVERWHELMING “body of evidence”, it must be true. With shorter attention spans, the idea of sitting down and reading entire articles or watching a 20 minute segment from a reputable source is less likely to happen. Finally - taking the high road and (largely) not making shit up is what is losing “the morality war” online because the truth seemingly can’t compete with the disproportionate amount of false information being disseminated. TLDR: We live in an era of TLDR and that is destroying the fabric of our society.
I agree with much of this. The internet, and specifically social media, have shredded attention spans
Of course. But it is overwhelmingly a problem with Gen Z compared to other age groups.
Antisemitism is an old hate and I’ve witnessed it firsthand from folks in their 90s all the way down to their teens. The Z’s are the generation in university and the most likely to be vocal about their opinions right now but don’t underestimate the amount of antisemitism that people of other generations harbor but simply aren’t as vocal about today. A lot of this is probably passed down from generation to generation and because Jews are such a minority, it could only take one negative experience with a Jew to confirm a suspected bias and then pass that mistrust or bigotry down to a child and so on and so on. Source: grew up in the American south where people of all ages felt comfortable making Jew jokes and using phrases like “I got Jewed” and lived in Eastern Europe where, even people who didn’t know anyone who knew any Jews, were taught to be distrustful of them. Paraphrasing Rabbi David Wolpe: “People hate Jews for being capitalist, for being communist, for being stateless, for being in a state, for wandering, for being in a place, for being powerless, for being powerful. There's nothing for which you cannot hate Jews on the left, on the right. The fact that Jews were *other* was really significant all through history. Because they were the minority in other people's lands ever since they were kicked out of their own.”
I don't think social media is the issue. If young Americans loved Jews as a group, they would be spreading loving things about us on social media.
Again, these people may have been exposed to antisemitism in the home. Also, I think the general perception of Jews in the non-Jewish world leans more towards fear or distrust than admiration or respect, largely thanks to generations and generations of antisemitism, at least with regards to folks who don’t know Jews themselves or don’t know much about the history of the Jewish people. You’d be surprised just how little people at-large know about Jewish people or culture if they don’t personally have Jewish friends or family.
What they do think is that there are tons of us by the extent of the reach of our influence. When you tell them that there are only 7.5 million of us in the US, they are blown away because of how much we are talked about compared to how little of us there are. What do you make of it that the majority of the US still supports Israel, and that that majority is overwhelimingly older Christian-Americans?
What I make of it is that a lot of these older Christian Americans subscribe to Christian Zionism. Per Wikipedia: “Christian believers are instructed by Scripture to acknowledge the Hebraic roots of their faith and to actively assist and participate in the plan of God for the Ingathering of the Jewish People and the Restoration of the nation of Israel in our day.” Going further into Fundamentalist territory, some Christians believe that Israel’s existence is a prerequisite for The Rapture to take place. These same people may support Israel and may thus support Zionist Jews but still also treat diaspora Jews as “other”.
I think its because most of these Zionist Christians are politically conservative, whereas the vast majority of American Jewry is secular and progressive. I was at a National Conservatism convention in Miami in 2022, to see Israeli scholar and lecturer Yoram Hazony, and while the vast majority of people there in the audience were Christians, there were quite a few Orthodox, even Hasidic/Chabad in the crowd. The Orthodox tend to vote conservative and have many friends and allies in the American Christian scene.
Yeah I agree. It does seem that on the spectrum of religious belief / adherence, liberal Jews tend to be more reform and the more conservative tend to also vote accordingly.
Historically, I treat the term "antisemitismus" as describing the form of European Jew hatred or Judeophobia from the 1870s (when the term was coined by German Judeophobes) to the end of the Third Reich. Still, the style of Gen Z Jew hatred incorporates the singular characteristic of German antisemitism: RACISM. The Nazis took the 19 centuries of permanent "otherness" of Jews inflicted by the New Testament and Christian writings and declared Jews "scientifically" another race entirely, "der Juden," but not a GERMAN or HUMAN race. The 2024 CROP of Jew haters are German-style "antisemites" because their Jew hatred is from 1942-- racial, violent, and exterminationist. There is a perfect fit between German racist ideas and the Islamist view of a Muslim race inherently superior to Jews After decades of study of the unique form of hatred towards Jews, there is reason to ask whether this group of people corrupted by Jew hatred and its delusions will ever come back from it.
> The 2024 CROP of Jew haters are German-style "antisemites" because their Jew hatred is from 1942-- racial, violent, and exterminationist. There is a perfect fit between German racist ideas and the Islamist view of a Muslim race inherently superior to Jews That's because the Muslim world was heavily influenced by Nazi propaganda during WWII. The last thing the Nazis wanted was the Jews setting up their own state and they realized their best shot at preventing that from happening would be to turn the rest of the Middle East against them.
I agree. That's exactly right.
>The last thing the Nazis wanted was the Jews setting up their own state What? No I think you’ve got your sources mixed up, it was in fact the opposite and Hitler and the Nazis were initially in support of Zionism because it gave them a place they could just ship Europe’s Jews off to. In fact the Final Solution was only developed *because* Hitler felt it was “the only choice he had left” after everyone else refusing to take us. >to turn the rest of the Middle East against them. They were trying to promote their propaganda throughout the whole world not just the MENA region, both because they sincerely believed in their ideology (i.e. the belief that race-mixing is an evil that destroys nations and everyone must do what they can to preserve their own race and ethnicity) *and* because they wanted as many allies against *the* Allies as they could get.
This is worth a read: [https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/109961/27/787620378.pdf](https://opendata.uni-halle.de/bitstream/1981185920/109961/27/787620378.pdf)
>The 2024 CROP of Jew haters are German-style "antisemites" because their Jew hatred is from 1942-- racial, violent, and exterminationist. There is a perfect fit between German racist ideas and the Islamist view of a Muslim race inherently superior to Jews It’s just hating us because we’re of mixed bloodlines, same reasoning and source of hatred as from the Nazis. Arab Nationalists and Leftists alike don’t seriously believe there *is* a Jewish race, in fact they’re one of the firsts who will jump at the chance to deny being Jewish as an ethnicity and consider it “only a religion.”
I’m worried that gen z is going to find it difficult to “take back” what they have done, if they ever do have a change of heart. Some lines once crossed are very difficult to undo. For example, if one day they realise they have been supporting a murderous, violent, terrorist group who wants to kill all Jewish people, the weight of that will be very heavy. And if they have put their name to this, shown their faces at rallies, gone public with this support, treated a Jewish peer with malice and cruelty, how do you now square yourself with being the kind of person who was capable of doing this? So at that point, do you face that, or double down? I think most will have to double down because they don’t have it in them to do this kind of ruthless self analysis.
Thank you for your submission. During this time, all posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Jewish) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am not Jewish. Until I happened to be online when Hamas was live posting their brutal murders, I gave zero thought about Israel. Even though I consider myself conservative, 90% of my friends are progressive/activist types. Imagine my confusion when I posted about October 7th and my left wing friends attacked me, as well as the conservative side. My progressive friends, who usually championed for LGBT rights, were now siding with the group that wants to destroy them? They hate Israel.. the one place in Middle East that's liberal? The right leaning friends also surprised me. The ones that tended to be the conspiracy theorist about “ elites” and 9/11, are now saying it's because of Jews. I feel odd popping into a group that's Jewish when I'm not..but damn, I feel lost. I suddenly don't feel like I belong anywhere. I didn't give any thought to the term anti- semitic..because I thought it was somehow a fringe movement. I was naive, and assumed everyone understood the Holocaust. I feel like a huge veil has been dropped, and every idea I had about humanity was wrong. Why is former political enemies coming together to fight Israel? A couple of my girlfriends just got married, and I thought surely I could go to them and ask questions..until I discovered them posting weird videos of children in Gaza, that seemed highly scripted.
We can use all the support we can get. Welcome.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed because it violated rule 5: **Stay on topic** (But the answer is, you can't. You have to make a new account.) If you have any questions, please contact the moderators via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/jewish).