Is there a valid basis for Anti-Semitism?

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 16
Topic's author
#1
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Edit: “Semitism” god damned iPhones.

This is not to say that Anti-Semitism is valid; but the basis behind it is the claim that there is an over representation in key areas of employment and power.

Is that claim actually true; and if so what are the causes?

More importantly; if the underrepresentation of blacks compared to whites is indicative of  systemic racism - on what basis could we rule out the same if there is a positive true over-representation of other races compared to whites?


Again - this is not to say the claim itself is valid; but to be able to effectively combat anti-semitism, it’s pretty critical to have an answer to that question.
#2
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
I believe that the fundamental notion behind anti-Semitism is that Jews profit at the expense of non-Jews.

And therein lies the conundrum: Jews tend to prosper *in spite of* the long history and preponderance of anti-Semitic sentiment at best, and outright persecution and genocide at worst, in the world. They certainly pose a stark contrast to other victimized groups which blame their lack of prosperity on their victimization.

Topic's author
#3
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@cristo71
But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
#4
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,563
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
It can be both simultaneously rather than being mutually exclusive.

It is a bit of a chicken and egg thing, though:  which came first, the profiting at others’ expense, or the anti-Semitism? Sure, I can generalize why the prejudice exists in modern times, but I really can’t say how, why or when anti-Semitic sentiment originated. The “profiting at others’ expense” accusation strikes me as merely jealousy rearing its ugly head. 

They do seem to play the cards they are dealt in life quite well, if I may generalize…


#5
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ramshutu
-->@cristo71
But turning that on its head: why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization - rather than the success being because of the very thing those doing the victimizing are claiming?
  • Strong familial obligations- immediate and extended
  • Lots of ritual.  I don't argue that the rituals themselves are all that important but obedient practice ensures that the same groups of people are in the same places at the same time- reinforcing community and providing lots of time to discuss community building - marriages, who needs a job, who needs to be cautioned, etc.
  • Strong organizing institutions
  • Strong sense of destiny in both time and place

#6
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Ramshutu
There is a relatively recent improvement available that allows you to edit forum titles for I think 30  mins after post.
#7
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Is there a valid basis for Anti-Semitism?
No, there isn't.

To answer a different question that you've asked in this thread,
why do you think that the success is inspite of victimization
Natural selection (both in terms of habits in how they raised children and perhaps certain dispositions) is quite literally the reason that there certainly has been a reality that the most tough (primarily) and quick-witted (secondarily) survived the several persecutions of their ethnicity.

Due to the persecution, not only being fast-thinking is selected in favour of but being 'tough and loyal' in themselves are. If you don't help out others in effective 'tit for tat' trades, you would over time end up isolated and easily persecuted (perhaps violently or at least financially in a glass ceiling for your career prospects).

Do note, however, that quality of childhood mental stimulation and emphasis on education are present in Jewish culture. The reason a persecuted ethnicity may end up underperforming tends to be a combination of lack of opportunity meeting lack of education, this tends to lead to children who have lack of nutrition for brain development and lack of external stimuli to make them want to push their intellect, as opposed to their athleticism or 'grit'. 

It's the 'toughness' that always is primarily selected in favour of with the persecuted, you will find they're consistently extremely tough characters mentally many generations down the line because you had to be to survive, if you were unfortunate enough to have a disposition towards depression and anxiety and it crippled your performance and stamina, you either ended up dead or totally pushed to deep poverty.

What you can say 'toughness' is is perhaps the tendency to react to a situation of distress with ire, as opposed to sadness or anxiety. Those that found hardship very motivating and are the type of people whose genes and minds led to them being motivated to 'avoid negative outcome' more than 'seek positive outcome' probably found life more bearable and reproduced, raised tough children etc. Those that were sensitive, responded more to motivation based on 'seeking positive outcome' or approached anxiety with a 'let's chill out' approach tended to remain single or have an only child and invest entirely in them, just due to the stress and way their personality type didn't end up able to flourish given the circumstances.

I read this post over several times to make sure I carefully worded each part to not get twisted to make me seem in any shape or form racist or bigoted. If anyone feels offended personally, feel free to let me know why. I am trying to explain in a 100% non-bigoted way how and why a persecuted ethnicity ends up particularly resourceful more often than not, if given the opportunity to.
Topic's author
#8
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
Natural selection (both in terms of habits in how they raised children and perhaps certain dispositions) is quite literally the reason that there certainly has been a reality that the most tough (primarily) and quick-witted (secondarily) survived the several persecutions of their ethnicity.

Due to the persecution, not only being fast-thinking is selected in favour of but being 'tough and loyal' in themselves are. If you don't help out others in effective 'tit for tat' trades, you would over time end up isolated and easily persecuted (perhaps violently or at least financially in a glass ceiling for your career prospects). 
The specific issue I can point out to with, is that for NS to apply, there has to be genetic variation (which we can likely assume), and a pressure that leads to those with a variation to have more kids than those that don’t. I’m not sure that I see an area in which that can apply sufficiently well enough to make it as a selective pressure.


I would be interested in seeing whether there is a gravitation to one sort of career over others; like an overrepresentation in TV, but under representation in, say, software engineering.
#9
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
not just having more, remember that frequency of reproduction is only one side of NS.

longevity of the offspring and the tendency of said offspring to also reproduce a lot are the further elements of it.
Topic's author
#10
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
For an allele to take over in a population; the percentage of the population that has that allele has to increase in each generation.

Excluding things like drift, this  is either because organisms without the allele die and/or organisms with the allele out-reproduce that that don’t. Longevity and having more Offspring is exactly what I meant by “has more kids than those that don’t”
#11
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@Ramshutu
They have the ambition gene, and they have a high level of intelligence. No mystery here.
#12
janesix
janesix's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 2,049
3
3
3
janesix's avatar
janesix
3
3
3
-->
@RationalMadman
@Ramshutu
they have very high Kalothi
#13
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@Ramshutu
That american jews have, on average, substantially greater socioeconomic status than the american gentiles is fairly well known. It may be due to a superior culture, superior intelligence, and/or in-group favoritism.  Resentment in response to the greater wealth and influence of jews is common. Perhaps the situation's a good way for american whites to understand how historically marginalized groups may feel toward white people in general. The more generalized problem, I think, is the lack of a unifying national identity. The disharmony between the legal identity and the ethnic ones is a destructive weakness which can be resolved by either fixing the identities around the nation (i.e. adoption of a unifying ethnic identity and culture, "melting pot"), or by the fixing the nation around the identities (i.e. ethnic separatism, either wholly or through some new form of federalism). The former is objectively more desirable.
#14
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@dfss9788
what exactly are you suggesting with 'superior culture'? Just because more of your ethnicity end up as high paid white-collar workers doesn't mean that the blue collar culture is inferior, it's actually complimentary.

A huge error even many egalitarians make is to aim for pure equality in outcome (yes, I agree with the right-wing on this). Not everybody wants to be an accountant, doctor, lawyer, media mogul etc. Some really are happy with simpler lines of work or alternatively more creative lines of work.

There are not superior cultures if you're measuring it on the tendency of them to end up that way. A society can't function if everyone is wired and raised to be a managerial and/or executive type role. It will fall apart, even when artificial intelligence eventually can do most manual labour tasks, there still will be differentiation. It's also why I have particular issue with people who measure actors' and musicians' success by awards attained etc.

An underground rapper or extremely niche director of a strange genre is never, ever no matter how talented going to garner the same results in trophies and such as a mainstream blockbuster type. Their league, to some, is 'way above' but is enriched in a very different way.

Linux operating system developers and DuckDuckGo search engine know they're never beating Microsoft, Apple and Google at the numbers game. It's not about wealth and popularity, it's about quality and satisfaction. I reckon Mark Zuckerberg, stone-cold expression and lawsuits aside, is ultimately extremely proud of what he's done with Facebook. I don't deny that the mainstream successes can relish in their success but I also believe that a less popular socialising IM platform that came and went was beautiful in its own right.

I don't get people who always need to compete on sheer results, it's also why 'rating' on this website will never mean as much to me as frequency of entertaining debates and why I'll even forfeit regularly if I find them unsatisfactory. What you do with your life has so many variables, I don't get this 'superior' or 'inferior' thing. Sure, I get it, if someone has absolutely no skills, job etc you want to push them but beyond that I don't like judgemental parenting or society. I find it tends to be toxic more than motivating.
#15
dfss9788
dfss9788's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 152
1
2
2
dfss9788's avatar
dfss9788
1
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
I think you misunderstood. I don't believe in informal social hierarchies. That something is "superior" or "inferior" is meaningful to me only in relation to an objective end. A hammer is superior to a wrench when the job is to drive a nail through wood. I meant "superior" not in an intrinsic way, but merely in relation to the accumulation of wealth and influence.
#16
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,085
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Ramshutu
If someone does not succeed or things go wrong they  blame the success of others and look for appropriate labels.

It's a typical human response.

Jew, Muslim, Black, Asian, Chinese etc. are all discriminatory labels that are readily applied when the "white" chips are down.


And Semitism is something of a misnomer, as not all Semites are Jews and not all Jews are Semitic.