![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osewalrusA good explainer from Vox.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/7/17082030/womens-march-louis-farrakhan-tamika-mallory-anti-semitism-controversy
So here is my issue.
The left has, for a long time, had behaviors and associations that it considers mallum in se ("evil in themselves"). Some of these are considered so corrupting that even association without affirmative disavowal is considered tacit endorsement. Further, for those infected, either directly or by association, their entire corpus of work (past and future) is poisoned as the fruit of the poisonous tree.
To take an obvious example, we would consider anyone who expresses sympathy for blatant racism or blatant homophobia to be outside the pale of the modern liberal or progressive movement -- even if this person had sound economic populist leanings. There has been some effort to extend this to abortion, domestic abuse and various forms of sexism.
Mind you, "the Left" is large and the behaviors what behaviors are what Richard Rority referred to the Left's equivalent of the Doctrine of Original Sin vary. In the early days of the 1960s, any collaboration by leftist intellectuals with anti-communist efforts, with the FBI or CIA, or the "military industrial complex" were considered disqualifying. In the 1970s, racism against African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos was added. The jury is till out on whether and to what degree anti-Asian, anti-Native American or other discrimination raises to this level. In the last 10-15 years, we have added explicit homophobia. The last 5 years have seen increasing inclusion of anti-Transgender to the list.
Recall that I am not speaking merely of things that the Left considers "bad." I am not even thinking of things that are personally disqualifying. We have certainly reached a point where if someone were to repeat the casual insult of my youth "that is wicked retahded," the liberal community would demand an instant retraction and apology and might well regard such a person as personally irredeemably prejudiced against the mentally disabled. But we would not generally judge this person's friends to be so contaminated that a refusal to condemn the person and defending the remark as "habit" would mark the defender as equally damned. By contrast, if X gave a speech declaring that 'illegal Mexicans are spreading leprosy and committing murder and rape in our communities" and Y was not merely present, but defended X's remarks as being "in the general context of defending organized labor and a living wage," liberals would regard not merely X as racist but Y as racist for defending X.
So here's my thing. I am not a fan of the doctrine of original sin as practiced in liberal or progressive circles. I don't think you should need to disavow your conservative priest who occasionally reminds his flock that it is still church doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, or even condemn Farrakahn for either his Jew hate or homophobia. I think people can, and should, be able to appreciate good in people who have disgusting attitudes about other things. The world is too complicated for a doctrine that not only declares the individual expressing disgusting prejudice beyond Grace but likewise condemns all that person's work as fruit from the poison tree. Or, to use my own religious framework. Even if the bigot is tamei, the bigot is not Avei Avot haTumah. And even a bigot may be merely a rishon hatuma and not an av tumah, depending on the nature of the person's statements and conduct.
But if we are going to have a doctrine of original sin, a sin so corrupting and powerful that even those standing in its presence have an obligation to disavow and condemn it lest their silence be seen as endorsement, then I want Jew hate on that list. I won't even insist on parsing the dog whistles. Yes, "Israel" is the new "Urban." But I'll give it a pass for now. Just put plain, unrepentant Jew hate in the same category as plain, unrepentant bigotry and I'll be happy.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/3/7/17082030/womens-march-louis-farrakhan-tamika-mallory-anti-semitism-controversy
So here is my issue.
The left has, for a long time, had behaviors and associations that it considers mallum in se ("evil in themselves"). Some of these are considered so corrupting that even association without affirmative disavowal is considered tacit endorsement. Further, for those infected, either directly or by association, their entire corpus of work (past and future) is poisoned as the fruit of the poisonous tree.
To take an obvious example, we would consider anyone who expresses sympathy for blatant racism or blatant homophobia to be outside the pale of the modern liberal or progressive movement -- even if this person had sound economic populist leanings. There has been some effort to extend this to abortion, domestic abuse and various forms of sexism.
Mind you, "the Left" is large and the behaviors what behaviors are what Richard Rority referred to the Left's equivalent of the Doctrine of Original Sin vary. In the early days of the 1960s, any collaboration by leftist intellectuals with anti-communist efforts, with the FBI or CIA, or the "military industrial complex" were considered disqualifying. In the 1970s, racism against African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinos was added. The jury is till out on whether and to what degree anti-Asian, anti-Native American or other discrimination raises to this level. In the last 10-15 years, we have added explicit homophobia. The last 5 years have seen increasing inclusion of anti-Transgender to the list.
Recall that I am not speaking merely of things that the Left considers "bad." I am not even thinking of things that are personally disqualifying. We have certainly reached a point where if someone were to repeat the casual insult of my youth "that is wicked retahded," the liberal community would demand an instant retraction and apology and might well regard such a person as personally irredeemably prejudiced against the mentally disabled. But we would not generally judge this person's friends to be so contaminated that a refusal to condemn the person and defending the remark as "habit" would mark the defender as equally damned. By contrast, if X gave a speech declaring that 'illegal Mexicans are spreading leprosy and committing murder and rape in our communities" and Y was not merely present, but defended X's remarks as being "in the general context of defending organized labor and a living wage," liberals would regard not merely X as racist but Y as racist for defending X.
So here's my thing. I am not a fan of the doctrine of original sin as practiced in liberal or progressive circles. I don't think you should need to disavow your conservative priest who occasionally reminds his flock that it is still church doctrine that homosexuality is a sin, or even condemn Farrakahn for either his Jew hate or homophobia. I think people can, and should, be able to appreciate good in people who have disgusting attitudes about other things. The world is too complicated for a doctrine that not only declares the individual expressing disgusting prejudice beyond Grace but likewise condemns all that person's work as fruit from the poison tree. Or, to use my own religious framework. Even if the bigot is tamei, the bigot is not Avei Avot haTumah. And even a bigot may be merely a rishon hatuma and not an av tumah, depending on the nature of the person's statements and conduct.
But if we are going to have a doctrine of original sin, a sin so corrupting and powerful that even those standing in its presence have an obligation to disavow and condemn it lest their silence be seen as endorsement, then I want Jew hate on that list. I won't even insist on parsing the dog whistles. Yes, "Israel" is the new "Urban." But I'll give it a pass for now. Just put plain, unrepentant Jew hate in the same category as plain, unrepentant bigotry and I'll be happy.
no subject
Date: 2018-03-07 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-03-09 10:08 am (UTC)