politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The thing is, gesturing vaguely at something we thing is obvious, is not really a source. Even 1+1=2 has to be proven. I suspect that Zionism is just used as a pretext to be antisemitic by people who were going to anyways. But I also don't have any data to back it up.
Disclaimer: This is off-topic.
How do you prove this? Through definitions? An appeal to authority is not valid proof.
This line of reasoning reminds me of when people were saying the "square root of 2 isn't 1 because mathematical scholars say so"...No, it's by definition not one. Count one thing one time, how many things have you counted? One.
I don't need a source or an authority for that nor for 1+1=2. I need to understand the basic definitions and concepts.
The proof is something like 300+ pages long and they needed to invent a few new branches of mathematics to reach the end, because it's strictly not based on appeal to authority. I didn't even try to understand it, but it's a cool piece of trivia.
It's a basic property of counting though, right?
I mean I understand that there are academic standards of proof, but the idea that those are necessary for casual conversations about easily understood concepts is pretty ridiculous.
It seems like one of those bojack memes where the drooling person at the one end and the Jedi at the other end would both say just count a couple of rocks and the nerd in between would be saying write a 300-page proof.
Things like basic property of counting are not mathematical strict definitions.
Relying on "dude, it's obvious" doesn't work in science, you need to prove things. Otherwise you'd think a feather and a cannonball always fall a different speeds, for instance.
Mathematics isn't an empirical science.
And you're trying to prove that mathematics works the same way as physics weirdly with regards to proof? It doesn't. You do proofs in precalculus and none of them involve dropping cannonballs and feathers from the ceiling.
But again, we're not talking about an environment where formal proofs are necessary. This is social media, we're a link under cat photos.
My point is broader, you need data and rigor, not "dude, just look at it".
And my point is that you don't need data and rigor for every single discussion.
For something so sensitive, I like to have it. I won't accept any broad generalization unless backed by a reputable study.
You're kinda sensitive about everything. You want a 300-page thesis before acknowledging that 1+1=2.
Which it's kinda funny, this whole thing has been an aside but like...you said you tried to read it and didn't really understand it. Is that really what you need to have a casual conversation about something? A proof, study, or document too long or complicated for you to be able to prove it's wrong?
I don't want it, I said that it exists and it was needed because science it's an exact thing that requires proofs, experiments and data. What I want is any data that shows that Zionism causes a rise in Antisemitism, because I haven't seen any change. I only got "trust me bro" so far.
I also use electricity without knowing how a nuclear reactor works, if you want to criticize that.
I'm not quite sure that belief in zionism is measurable, but I'm sure you can find a source about antisemitism and zionist actions by Israel.
Anecdotally, I haven't seen as many "stop the hate" campaigns that are basically about antisemitism as I have since the major military actions started in the Gaza in my lifetime.
I'd look it up if I really cared anything about the outcome of the discussion but it really doesn't interest me that much to be honest.
Fair enough. I did look for sources (one Google search to be precise) and haven't found anything, so what we have is a bunch of anecdotal data that hardly serves as basis for any wide-reaching conclusions.
There is no "source" for the claim that zionism drives anti-semitism. It's outside the realm of objective science. But it seems pretty obvious that a bunch of genocidal wackos claiming to represent judaism is bad for jews.
It is often used by antisemites to disguise their antisemitism as valid criticism of zionism.
That validity ends, once you attack any Jew for their Jewishness, attribute any wrongdoing of Jews to their Jewishness or straight up insult other people as "Jews".
That's an option article, same as we are writing here. There could be statistics relating anti-semitic attacks to Israels activity, for instance. Claiming something is outside of objective science is a very lazy cope-out.
Yeah, it's not like there's a lot of people honestly and precisely detailing how they developed their bigoted attitudes. That doesn't mean that you can't reason your way to a logical conclusion, though.
This is a place where you need data, not reasoning to a plausible conclusion.
No, this (ascertaining the underlying causes of bigotry) is a place where definitive data by definition can't exist and thus logically reaching the most probable conclusion based on what IS known must take its place.
I'm trying to assume that your demands for the impossible are in good faith, but it's getting difficult .
As I said before, claiming data can't exist is a lazy cope-out. I also presented an example of data that could work: antisemitic attacks per day vs activity of Israel in Gaza, plotted over time. Just an example, I'm no sociologist.
As far as bad faith reading goes, ignoring the word "definitive" to make your strawman fit is up there 🙄
Nobody ever told you the difference between correlation and causation or the fact that bigotry consists of SO much more than just overt violence, did they?
It's clear that nothing good will come from continuing to indulge you, so I'm gonna go now. Have the day you deserve.
I repeat: just one example.