I mean, it’s not anti-semitic if it’s not intended as such. In that case, the only thing that can be called anti-semitic is your own interpretation of it, which isn’t something you can attribute to them. Therefore I think it’s ambiguous and detracts from the fact-based conversation that could be had otherwise. Unfortunately, since anti-semitism would be a much more damning and dramatic act, it seems people are much more interested in accusing Behringer of that than anything that exists as fact. This preference for sensational, self-righteous, and speculative accusations over measured, fact-based argument is a big part of what’s wrong with social discourse these days.
no, consequence matters more than intent, it’s perfectly possible (and very common) to be racist by accident
EDIT: the appeal to “facts and reason” is also a low and boring rhetorical trick much used by the alt-right as an attempt to escape critique by positioning their opinions as something inherently rational and self-evidently true; as such i’d avoid it like you’d avoid the plague or a ben shapiro video
4 Likes
So if I write a song that has a melodic motif within it, containing the same notes and phrasing as a racist song, is my song also racist, even if I’ve never heard the racist song?
I’m not using facts as a cop out. I’m about as left as they come, if you really want to know. I just think that there are real, tangible ways to make points, and I hold a great deal of concern for how sociopolitical discourse is affected by the internet, misinterpretation and misrepresentation of facts. I work for a news publisher and it’s related to my my job to think about how people interpret information, and how bias propogates.
3 Likes
For the record, this is much more of a ‘rhetorical trick’ than anything I’ve applied in this exchange.
attempting to debunk the antisemitic consequence of Behringer’s video by saying “what if i accidentally start doing cover versions of Skrewdriver records” doesn’t seem “as left as they come” to me chief
4 Likes
The idea that racism isn’t racism if it’s the result of ignorance rather than malice is so, so wrong-headed that I barely know where to start.
Here’s a really simple, easy to understand article about how people can engage in racist behaviours without necessarily holding hateful views towards the people affected by their unconscious actions.
In specific reference to this cartoon: it is unequivocally reminiscent of long-standing anti-Semitic imagery. It doesn’t matter if whoever drew or approved it at Behringer set out to target Jews, or whether they hang out with white supremacists at the weekend, or are lovely people who made a mistake. The image is anti-Semitic, and they were either so clueless or uncaring about this fact that they allowed it to be published.
If you’re so obsessed with facts and reason, why not engage substantively with that point, rather than constantly trying to shift the terms of the debate onto intention which, as you and I agree, is impossible to determine.
3 Likes
I understand the concept of implicit bias and systemic racism. I agree with the principles, but I disagree that just because something inadvertently shares the form of something else, that it should also share the message. I think that’s wrong, and it’s dangerous to muddy those waters.
Should we then say the swastika isn’t offensive regardless of context, because it was previously a religious symbol? No, because context and intent are important and fundamental to communication.
1 Like
I didn’t attempt to debunk anything. I just stated that it’s speculative. That’s a fact. In fact, I acknowledged the similarity - I just think there’s a less ambiguous stance to take on this, and if they weren’t in fact being anti-semitic, then those who are talking only about that point are the ones who are wrong.
1 Like
they were being antisemitic and there’s nothing speculative or ambiguous about that
3 Likes
Really, how do you know?
2 Likes
Right, and the context here is a multinational company using a caricatured depiction with strongly anti-Semitic connotations, as part of a sustained campaign of harassment and bullying aimed at delegitimising the work of a less powerful person with a historically Jewish surname.
That context is entirely consistent with the use of racist caricatures to deliberately belittle and delegitimise its targets. The fact that its use might have been accidental here doesn’t mean that its impact is changed.
You say you’re familiar with the concept of implicit bias, but then refuse to accept an absolutely self-evident example of it happening when it’s placed in front of you. I honestly don’t understand where you’re coming from on this and I really, really think you need to have a serious reconsideration of your principles or approach to basically everything around this issue.
4 Likes
it’s really not required for me to “prove” instances of racism to you. if you’re unable or unwilling to see the racism in something, that is very much on you
You are the one making a claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you.
2 Likes
it’s not some logical parlor game for debate bros and no-one owes you explanations for the things you willfully ignore
3 Likes
I’ve not refused to accept it. I have acknowledged that it may be true, but I’m not going to make that accusation, presented as a fact, because I feel that would be inaccurate.
this is intensely boring and i’m gonna bail out. there’s something uniquely grim about seeing a guy so invested in “proving” with “facts and reason” that an antisemitic incident did not occur
2 Likes
I just disagree with you, dude. Either convince me or don’t, but don’t get all worked up and start trying to be reductive towards me just because I don’t share your opinion.
2 Likes
I’ve not done that at all. I’m not trying to prove that it didn’t occur. Why does everything have to be so absolute? Why can’t we just embrace the fact that things are nuanced and there’s not always a binary resolution? It’s absurd that you would try to paint me as some kind of alt-right anti-semite just because I’m trying to provide context and nuance to a conversation, rather than jumping on a binary good-vs-evil bandwagon.
1 Like
Yeah, maybe Behringer were anti-semitic. If they were, it’s EVEN WORSE, but if they weren’t, they are STILL WRONG. That’s literally my whole point.