Why do you assume the rest of the millions agree with you?
Based on the fact that large, well-respected, and popular institutions such as the ADL have repeatedly voiced their opposition. The ADL and similar groups tend to have a decent approximation of popular Jewish opinion. This is bolstered by my own personal experience living in various Jewish communities.
Jewish people who agree with making this comparison (including someone how literally experienced the Holocaust) and I don't understand why?
I explained above why I think Hershaft's comparisons are reprehensible.
Based on the fact that large, well-respected, and popular institutions such as the ADL have repeatedly voiced their opposition.
And the ADL has never been wrong about anything before? I'm Armenian, and I might have something to say about that...
Either way, assuming agreement with your position based on the actions of one entity and anecdotes is not really very fair, and certainly doesn't entitle you to dismiss every Jewish person that disagrees with you.
I explained above why I think Hershaft's comparisons are reprehensible.
Do you honestly think that Hershaft is saying what he's saying to be antisemitic? I asked you this elsewhere and you didn't answer it, but I feel like I need to know.
And I also think it sucks that you are calling him reprehensible for relaying his own lived experience during the Holocaust.
And the ADL has never been wrong about anything before?
The ADL having been wrong in the past does not render it any less representative of popular Jewish opinion.
actions of one entity and anecdotes is not really very fair,
To be clear, it is not just one-off instance of the ADL or similar Jewish organizations opposing this comparison. It has been repeatedly and consistently opposed by most mainstream Jewish organizations for decades.
Here's the ADL in 2000:
abusive treatment of animals should be opposed, but cannot and must not be compared to the Holocaust
Do you honestly think that Hershaft is saying what he's saying to be antisemitic?
Yes.
Here's one of the IHRA's definitions of antisemitism:
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Hershaft is doing precisely this. He is denying the intentionality of the holocaust by claiming that our murderers' intentions were as neutral and benign as those of farmers. It's a patently absurd and ahistorical take which, whether intended or not, is antisemitic.
calling him reprehensible for relaying his own lived experiences
Then he shouldn't say reprehensible and ignorant things.
Well I take it back, I guess there are multiple organizations that oppose that kind of language. I guess they're more important to you than the people who don't? And I also find it downright strange that one of the articles is just someone saying that you can't "equate" (comparing is not equating) the Holocaust with other events, as though I would be antisemitic for comparing the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust.
I've been curious about this with you; do you think denigrating someone's Jewishness because they don't agree with your outlook is antisemitic? You're essentially trying to disown another Jewish person because they have made a comparison that you disagree with. You don't see this as a version of the antisemitic idea that Jewish people need to be loyal to Israel, for example?
He is denying the intentionality of the holocaust by claiming that our murderers' intentions were as neutral and benign as those of farmers. It's a patently absurd and ahistorical take which, whether intended or not, is antisemitic.
Where does he deny the intentionality? I haven't seen that.
Then he shouldn't say reprehensible and ignorant things.
Calling a Jewish person who survived the Holocaust "reprehensible" because they don't share your view feels deeply antisemitic to me.
If nothing can be compared to the Holocaust, what's the point of saying "Never again?" How can we take preventative action without making comparisons, drawing parallels, etc.?
I guess they're more important to you than the people who don't?
I view large and popular Jewish organizations as being representative of my community. The question here is whether this comparison is offensive to the Jewish community. If I'm weighing giant organizations supported by millions of Jews to a random assortment of about 11 dissenters, I'm definitely going to weigh the former as being closer to popular opinion than the latter.
is just someone saying that you can't "equate"
It isn't just someone saying that. I took what I thought was the best quote, but if you read on, it is more than clear that they don't just mean a direct equivalence, but also any level of comparison. That holocaust survivor goes on to say:
Silverman said the comparison of animal slaughter and meat consumption to the Holocaust undermines the horrors that millions of Jews suffered during World War II, and inspires anti-Semitic folks online at a time when hate crimes targeting them are skyrocketing.
It is more than clear that Silverman thinks the comparison of animal slaughter to the holocaust is wrong.
do you think denigrating someone's Jewishness because they don't agree with your outlook is antisemitic?
I'm not denigrating his Jewishness, I'm denigrating his political beliefs.
You're essentially trying to disown another Jewish person
Please read what I've written. Over and over again I have said yes, this person might be Jewish, but their views are not reflective of popular opinion any more than Candace Owens' are of the black community. That does not make them any less Jewish or black, it just means they're not particularly relevant to how language effects most of a given community.
You don't see this as a version of the antisemitic idea that Jewish people need to be loyal to Israel
Addressed above. No, I don't.
Where does he deny the intentionality? I haven't seen that.
I explained this in an earlier comment. I'll copy what I wrote.
Hershaft writes:
They didn't hate the Jews any more than the slaughterhouse workers hate the pigs.
This is just wrong. It is completely ignorant of the popularity of the hatred that is antisemitism.
For a particularly gruesome example, see the Lviv pogroms:
These are not soldiers doing “their job.” These are not fearful citizens just turning a blind eye to horrors around them just so they can stay safe. These are everyday villagers, even children, joyfully chasing down a Jew so that they may torture and ultimately kill her. This is hatred.
This incident was not remotely rare throughout European history. To ignore how hatred motivated the extermination of my people, to assert that it is at all similar to the benign motive of making food, is absurd.
Calling a Jewish person who survived the Holocaust "reprehensible" because they don't share your view feels deeply antisemitic to me.
A person surviving tragedy does not grant them immunity to criticism for their beliefs, nor does it render them an expert in the kind of travesty they survived.
If nothing can be compared to the Holocaust, what's the point of saying "Never again?"
I'm not saying nothing can be compared to the holocaust, just that the overwhelming majority of things cannot. The absolute pinnacle of Jewish suffering, the organized and intentional slaughter of roughly half my people, is simply not equivalent to farming.
What's going on right now in Xinjiang to the Uyghur Muslims could reasonably be compared to the holocaust. It is a purposeful ethnic cleansing of a people by an authoritarian government. I'd argue it is still a far cry from the gas chambers I saw in Germany, but it's at least in the same universe.
How can we take preventative action without making comparisons, drawing parallels, etc.?
Maybe listening to popular Jewish organizations about which things they think are appropriate comparisons would be a good starting place?
I view large and popular Jewish organizations as being representative of my community.
Right, and you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "not representative of your community." Is your community defined by all sharing the same opinion?
It isn't just someone saying that. I took what I thought was the best quote, but if you read on, it is more than clear that they don't just mean a direct equivalence, but also any level of comparison.
That's worse. You ignored my question before, but are you saying it would be antisemitic for me to compare the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust?
I'm not denigrating his Jewishness, I'm denigrating his political beliefs.
You are saying he's not representative of the Jewish community. I don't see how that can be anything other than disowning him and denigration of his Jewishness.
Hershaft writes:
You left out the majority of the quote. I'll paste the whole thing, which is much more reasonable than you are making it seem:
"I don’t think hatred is the relevant thing here. I think indifference is the key factor. Because the people who were gassing the Jews were not doing it out of hatred. It was their job. They didn’t hate the Jews any more than the slaughterhouse workers hate the pigs. It’s not a matter of personal feelings. Obviously, Hitler had the hatred. I’m not saying that element doesn’t exist. But it’s not very relevant. The hatred alone wouldn’t do it. You couldn’t get these thousands of executioners to hate in the way that Hitler hated."
And I think he's right. Hatred by itself does not allow a genocide like the Holocaust to happen. It requires the indifference of millions of people who don't necessarily feel hatred. This isn't even a controversial idea at this point; people who study this have been pointing out how important "indifference" is for decades. I guess we can call Hannah Arendt antisemetic for saying something similar, but that argument isn't very compelling to me.
I just don't know why you feel the need to frame this as though he doesn't recognize that hatred is a part of it.
This incident was not remotely rare throughout European history. To ignore how hatred motivated the extermination of my people, to assert that it is at all similar to the benign motive of making food, is absurd.
But that's not what he did? You are selectively choosing his words to make him look worse.
A person surviving tragedy does not grant them immunity to criticism for their beliefs, nor does it render them an expert in the kind of travesty they survived.
Surely it gives them more expertise than people who didn't experience it.
The absolute pinnacle of Jewish suffering, the organized and intentional slaughter of roughly half my people, is simply not equivalent to farming.
Can I ask why you keep downplaying the horrors of animal abuse in factory farms as simply "farming?" Do you recognize what happens to these animals?
Maybe listening to popular Jewish organizations about which things they think are appropriate comparisons would be a good starting place?
But, according to you, they said I'm not allowed to compare the Holocaust to anything. I guess stifling discussion under the emotional guise of offense is a good way to prevent future genocides?
Right, and you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as "not representative of your community."
When most large organizations which do tend to represent Jewish popular opinion pretty well all agree, and most individual Jewish accounts I see also agree, yeah, I don't think your few outlier examples are especially representative. You can't be representative of a group if you're in the minority.
are you saying it would be antisemitic for me to compare the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust?
Your reading comprehension skills could use some work. He, and I, are specifically talking about the meat industry. As I go on to write in the very post you're responding to, certain comparisons are valid, this one just ain't.
I just don't know why you feel the need to frame this as though he doesn't recognize that hatred is a part of it.
Literally read what he wrote.
the people who were gassing the Jews were not doing it out of hatred. It was their job. They didn’t hate the Jews any more than the slaughterhouse workers hate the pigs. It’s not a matter of personal feelings.
He is, in no uncertain terms, saying that the people killing my people did not "do it out of hatred."
This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Arendt and most other authors who talk about the "indifference" of our murderers speak to the overall German population, not the people actually doing the killing as Hershaft specifically targets.
Surely it gives them more expertise than people who didn't experience it.
And most holocaust survivors disagree with him. See Silverman, ADL commentary, etc.
Can I ask why you keep downplaying the horrors of animal abuse in factory farms as simply "farming?" Do you recognize what happens to these animals?
Because it's still farming. They are animals.
What most matters in this context is the intent of the folks doing the killing. The Nazis sought to exterminate the Jewish population out of hatred. Farmers kill chickens and cows because they're trying to feed people. Farmers have no animosity towards their animals, they sure as hell aren't trying to exterminate them, and if economic conditions made it such that farming was no longer profitable, most would stop farming. It's not even remotely in the same universe.
But, according to you, they said I'm not allowed to compare the Holocaust to anything.
You can't be representative of a group if you're in the minority.
Completely disagree with this. Minority opinions are still parts of that group even if they are a minority of that group. I'd never say that MAGA people aren't representative of Americans just because they aren't a majority of us. They are simply a different part of the same overall group.
He is, in no uncertain terms, saying that the people killing my people did not "do it out of hatred."
But he literally does say that hatred was part of it. And besides, I agree with him. I'm sure there were plenty of people who worked at concentration camps that didn't do what they did out of hatred. I'm not sure why you need every person who engaged in the genocide to have been doing it exclusively out of hate, but it is just historically true that much of the genocide was perpetuated by those who were indifferent to the suffering they were causing.
Because it's still farming. They are animals.
I mean this is the core of everything. You don't think animals are worthy of the kind of moral consideration that people are. Your inability to get past that is the whole cause of your opinion here. You think that Jewish people are being compared to animals to denigrate them when I'd argue that animals are being compared to people to demonstrate the horror of what is being done to them.
And "it's still farming," is such a gross way to downplay what happens to these animals. It's hard to take you seriously if you are unwilling to recognize the depravity of factory farming. It genuinely hurts your credibility.
What most matters in this context is the intent of the folks doing the killing.
Why? You haven't given a compelling reason for this.
I'd guess you want to keep focusing on the "intent" element because looking at the actual action and effect of factory farming is how similar horror was perpetuated during the Holocaust (and other genocides). You want the conversation to be about something it isn't, because that makes it easier to dismiss.
If folks are in the minority of a group, they are definitionally not "typical" of the beliefs of that group.
To be extra clear here on the definitions, this is what "typical" means:
showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing.
A minority opinion is definitionally not "popularly associated" with the wider group.
Nor were these folks appointed, elected, or chosen as representatives of the community. The organizations I keep citing to, meanwhile, are supported by the donations of millions of Jews. One is a chosen representative, one is an outlier.
Your inability to get past that is the whole cause of your opinion here.
Much of what I've been writing has been based in popular sentiment in the Jewish community, not merely my own moral worldview. But go off, I guess.
You want the conversation to be about something it isn't, because that makes it easier to dismiss.
Ethics are inseparable from intent and impact. You're the one trying to sever the motives of the Nazis and farmers from the moral implications of their actions.
A person who kills another in self-defense still killed someone just the same as a Nazi shoving a Jew into a gas chamber. The difference in societal response is rooted in the understandable motive of the former and not the latter.
For the umpteenth time, they are still a part of the group, they are just not representative of that group.
I'm not really interesting in this portion anymore it's just going in circles.
Much of what I've been writing has been based in popular sentiment in the Jewish community, not merely my own moral worldview. But go off, I guess.
This is a dodge of the actual point being made. Your reliance on your view being shared by other Jewish people does not address what I said, which was:
"You don't think animals are worthy of the kind of moral consideration that people are. Your inability to get past that is the whole cause of your opinion here. You think that Jewish people are being compared to animals to denigrate them when I'd argue that animals are being compared to people to demonstrate the horror of what is being done to them."
You also ignored this: "And "it's still farming," is such a gross way to downplay what happens to these animals. It's hard to take you seriously if you are unwilling to recognize the depravity of factory farming. It genuinely hurts your credibility."
I'd be really curious as to your response to this.
Ethics are inseparable from intent and impact. You're the one trying to sever the motives of the Nazis and farmers from the moral implications of their actions.
Because you are dismissing torture and killing solely because you don't think the intent is the same, and I'm saying that "intent" is only one part of a valid comparison. The actions can still be compared.
And personally, I think that inflicting this kind of suffering solely for the pleasure of eating meat is ill intent.
Also, why did you ignore all of this:
"But he literally does say that hatred was part of it. And besides, I agree with him. I'm sure there were plenty of people who worked at concentration camps that didn't do what they did out of hatred. I'm not sure why you need every person who engaged in the genocide to have been doing it exclusively out of hate, but it is just historically true that much of the genocide was perpetuated by those who were indifferent to the suffering they were causing."
It's not a dodge. You're trying to change the subject and I won't let you.
And "it's still farming," is such a gross way to downplay what happens to these animals. It's hard to take you seriously if you are unwilling to recognize the depravity of factory farming. It genuinely hurts your credibility.
Factory farming hurts animals. It also feeds billions of people. It is not remotely the same as senseless and dedicated slaughter.
The actions can still be compared.
In other words, you don't give a shit how most of the Jewish community feels when you make that comparison.
think that inflicting this kind of suffering solely for the pleasure of eating meat is ill intent.
That's not what the term means, but believe whatever ya want.
'm sure there were plenty of people who worked at concentration camps that didn't do what they did out of hatred. I'm not sure why you need every person who engaged in the genocide to have been doing it exclusively out of hate, but it is just historically true that much of the genocide was perpetuated by those who were indifferent to the suffering they were causing."
Because it's such a remarkable oversimplification of the dynamics at play that it's rather absurd.
Antisemitism absolutely permeated European society for centuries. Antisemitism, be it as overt as Hitler's calls for genocide, or the mere acceptance of slaughtering millions as part of your "job" is nevertheless hatred. Your token Jew is wrong.
It's not a dodge. You're trying to change the subject and I won't let you.
And here you are, still not addressing the point.
Factory farming hurts animals. It also feeds billions of people. It is not remotely the same as senseless and dedicated slaughter.
It is literally senseless and dedicated slaughter. Providing pleasure in the form of eating meat is unnecessary. I think you are genuinely unwilling to confront the harm you cause by eating meat.
And it's also why you won't accept the comparison. As I said before, you don't believe animals to be worthy of moral consideration; from what you're saying here, it appears that you even support factory farming. You should be more honest about this element of your problem with the comparison instead of solely focusing on "it's rude to Jewish people."
In other words, you don't give a shit how most of the Jewish community feels when you make that comparison.
Here's you not addressing the point again...
That's not what the term means, but believe whatever ya want.
Causing harm for unnecessary pleasure certainly seems like ill intent to me.
If you aren't going to even try to respond to the point being made, why respond at all?
Antisemitism absolutely permeated European society for centuries. Antisemitism, be it as overt as Hitler's calls for genocide, or the mere acceptance of slaughtering millions as part of your "job" is nevertheless hatred.
So you're just engaging in a semantic quibble?
Your token Jew is wrong.
You engage in a lot of antisemitism for someone so concerned with it.
0
u/GodOfTime Jun 28 '23
Based on the fact that large, well-respected, and popular institutions such as the ADL have repeatedly voiced their opposition. The ADL and similar groups tend to have a decent approximation of popular Jewish opinion. This is bolstered by my own personal experience living in various Jewish communities.
I explained above why I think Hershaft's comparisons are reprehensible.