/lit/ - Literature

>>4100043
rewrites can be good.
Have you ever read Soyinka's take on Euripides play The Bacchae?
I'm interested, but I know I'll never get to have a decent discussion of it online because every idiot will just see "Jew rewrites classic western play" accompanied with the picture of Howard Johnson's gargantuan srón.

>>4100051
woops, I mean Jacobson.
But still, them nostrils.

Well damme, the nerve of that fucker. Okay, first of all, no living writer should have the stones or idiocy to even Think he could write in the league of Shakespeare. Second, this is political correctness gone dangerously retarded. Hey guys, let's change Madame Bovary into a man. We'll call him Monsieur Bovine

>>Four hundred years later, the question needs to be reframed: ‘Who is the hero of this play and who is the villain?’ And if Shylock is the villain, why did Shakespeare choose to make him so?”

I don't understand why the question needs to be reframed. Maybe the question is the point of the play.

If he had any balls he would rewrite Othello for the same reasons.

Do you people even read?
Rewrites and retellings of Shakespeare's works are done all the time.

>>4100051

Yes but the reason for this re-write is absurd. Why on earth should the so called 'anti-semtism' be written out? Whats next, cutting out the crucifixion from the New Testament because it casts Jews in a bad light?

>>4100084
well they have been on a PR blitz these past few decades

>>4100043

>“Whoever would go to art with a mind already made up, on any subject, misses what art is for. So to censor it in the name of a political or religious conviction, no matter how sincerely held, is to tear out its very heart,” he wrote at the time.

>"So to censor it in the name of a political or religious conviction, no matter how sincerely held, is to tear out its very heart,”

And thats exactly what he's doing with this re-write of Shakespeare. How could one be so blatantly hypocritical?

>most controversial play
>Merchant of Venice

There was me thinking it was maybe something like Titus Andronicus, in which a girls gets brutally raped, and her hands and tongue cut off.

Nah, a contemporary Jewish caricature is way more serious.

>Mfw

To be fair, this guys is one of many who are rewriting some of Shakespeare plays (Including Margaret Atwood doing The Tempest), to be published at the 400th anniversary of his death (when he will no doubt be reaching maximum grave spinning). I suspect this bullshit may be at least partly a PR ploy for attention. It still pisses me off. Not b/c the play is great and I'm a fan of Shakespeare (I am), but because of the obnoxious attitude of this pretentious jerk.

>>4100043
>“Mr Shakespeare probably never met a Jew

I took a college level class on Shakespeare and we read this. There was historically a HUGE wave of antisemitism in Shakespeare's time! Jews were known for being money lenders and charging outrageously high interest rates.

>>4100043

>Mr Shakespeare probably never met a Jew

He probably never met a witch, a sprite or a Roman emperor either.

What the fuck is this shit.

>>4100095
lol, I hope someone points it out to him. Hypocritical old geezer

Are there any other Jews in any of Shakespeares plays? Just wondering.

>>4100095
He's not censoring it, he's "reframing" it....

Shakespeare is too big to fail

>>4100108
> in Shakespeare's time!

m8, that form of anti-semitism goes way back.
You can find quotes of Cicero complaining about Jews.

>>4100125

Indeed, it goes incredibly far back

>>4100084
Just like any other Shakespeare rewrite if the author believes they can take a play and modify it to shed light on a subject or even just throw out their own artistic vision, then all well to them.

take >>4100086 for example.
Smiley took the story of Lear and shed light on our notions of who Lear really could have been, just through a rewriting.

It's not like we lose anything anyway, he isn't replacing the classic with his own concept of The Merchant.
But as >>4100105 said this is just another shitty PR ploy for attention.

>The signing of Mr Jacobson, who won the 2010 Man Booker Prize for his novel The Finkler Question, is something of a coup for the publisher Penguin Random House – which has also signed the revered Canadian author Margaret Atwood to rewrite The Tempest.

>The pair join the British writer Jeanette Winterson who will rewrite The Winter’s Tale and the Pulitzer-winning American novelist Anne Tyler who has signed up to rewrite The Taming of the Shrew.

>The novels will be called the Hogarth Shakespeare and published in 2016 to coincide with the 400th anniversary of the playwright’s death.

Do none of you read? It says that the publisher has singed on several authors to rewrite certain plays for the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's death. This isn't some organised effort to purge history out of literature, you alarmist morons.

>>4100105
>To be fair, this guys is one of many who are rewriting some of Shakespeare plays (Including Margaret Atwood doing The Tempest), to be published at the 400th anniversary of his death (when he will no doubt be reaching maximum grave spinning). I suspect this bullshit may be at least partly a PR ploy for attention.
This. Shakespeare, like many famous older authors, has been "re-written" and etc. dozens of times for dozens of different reasons. This is just going to be a different one, albeit one for "politically correct" reasons. It is stupid, I agree.

>>4100125

>>4100129

>take >>4100086 for example.
Smiley took the story of Lear and shed light on our notions of who Lear really could have been, just through a rewriting.

That authors purpose, as you said, was to shed light on our notions of who Lear could have been and delved into his character.

This re-writing is not to further our understanding of the play or its characters, but to outright censor one of its themes because the writer finds it offensive.

didn't shakespeare already do this with the whole "if you prick us . . ." line? Shylock was been read and performed as a sympathetic character numerous times.

imagine how much different the world would be if the babylonians or egyptians or whoever had genocided the jews

>>4100137
>>4100139

>This isn't some organised effort to purge history out of literature

I didn't mean to present it as such, I was decrying his reasons for writing this re-write.

>>4100137
>Hire a bunch of novelists to rewrite select works by the greatest playwright.

What could possibly go wrong? It's not like plays and novels are completely different.

>>4100148
The biggest loss would be the Merchant of Venice.

>>4100141
>This re-writing is not to further our understanding of the play or its characters, but to outright censor one of its themes because the writer finds it offensive.

The author didn't say anything about there. There is, in fact, nothing to indicate that this is the case, or that the author's intent in this case differs from the intent in the case that you think is acceptable, except your own political fantasies and your persecution complex. Mr Jacobson says that he will explore and re-examine and reframe the story, which is the same thing you praise Mr Smiley for doing. There is no indication of any intent to censor anything, but only to explore and expand the understanding of the work.

Not to mention that it is ludicrous to say that creating a new work is somehow equivalent to censoring the original. That argument just makes no sense.

>>4100144
He has, but there's still a complexity to the character and especially a complexity in his ultimate fate, and that is a complexity that I would expect Mr Jacobson to explore, and that I think it is very proper for him to explore and very interesting.

To put it another way, this is another in that line of sympathetic interpretations. Mr Jacobson is not doing anything new, nor does he claim to be; he's doing the same thing all those sympathetic characterizations have done, although I would assume that he hopes to do it in a new and different and insightful way. I really don't get all the furor over this (except for the obvious /pol/-centric explanations). It's completely in line with the way that we talk about and interpret Shakespeare.

>>4100160
as long as they aren't set "in da hood" if i have to hear about one more "urban" othello im going to... feel bad

>>4100171
It's funny, too, because I feel like if you really want to do a version with black actors, there's plenty of scope for doing African politics, or Afro-Caribbean, or what have you, but no, it's always in the fucking hood.

I really liked that Afro-Caribbean Julius Caesar the Royal Shakespeare Company did.

>>4100148
We would have found new Jews.

And today the Palestinians are the Jews of the Israelis. -- Primo Levi

>>4100166
I think it takes the sympathetic interpretation to far and it becomes a different play. It wouldn't be Hamlet if the text has been changed so we're rooting for Claudius, it wouldn't be Romeo and Juliet if the text made us want them kept apart.

There are already plenty of great interpretations you can do with the text provided by the author.

Shylock was one of the most tragic characters in all of Shakespearean literature. Not a villain. He's the one stripped not only of his livelihood but of his fucking humanity in the trial scene while the Christian gets off scot free for breaking a contract.

>An oath, an oath, I have an oath in heaven:
>Shall I lay perjury on my soul?

>Nay, take my life and all; pardon not that:
>You take my house when you do take the prop
>That doth sustain my house; you take my life
>When you do take the means whereby I live.

>>4100043
>the Holocaust had not yet happened
What does he mean? It never happened.

>>4100171
>>4100177
Orson Welles did an all black production of Macbeth as part of the Federal Theatre Project in 1936. Generally known as Voodoo Macbeth and it's set in Haiti. It's often cited as one of the most important contemporary productions of Shakespeare.

That's honestly doing this kind of thing the right way. You need a vision a little grander than "I'm Jewish and I don't like the way this 400 year old Jew is portrayed in this play" for the bard.

>>4100222
>It's often cited as one of the most important contemporary productions of Shakespeare

high lol

what a faggot. might as well rewrite Oliver Twist whilst you're at it

>Mr Shakespeare probably never met a Jew

that fucking strawman. I don't even hate Jews but why does he think his race is so utterly flawless and perfect that no one possibly could? why would anyone think that of any race?

>the Holocaust had not yet happened

practically a non-sequitur. is he saying people should love every Jew to make up for the Holocaust? why even bring it up?

>>4100141
I should've been more clear, Smiley's rewriting of King Lear was primarily made to give us perspective into the situations Goneril and Regan were in.
Because they were characters who were always interpreted in an unfair light (and in turn brushed off to the sideline) Smiley saw it fit to write a novel taking one of the daughters as the protagonist/narrator. By doing this we gain perspective, realise how much of a tyrant Lear might be, and learn how our notions of the evil daughters could be misplaced.

Howard is probably using the very same premise for Shylock.

>>4100227
Care to elaborate?

>>4100222
>>4100222
>You need a vision a little grander than "I'm Jewish and I don't like the way this 400 year old Jew is portrayed in this play" for the bard.

For god's sake, let the man write the book before you criticize him for not having a vision. We don't know what his vision is or what his interpretation will be - we just know that he thinks that it's a product of its time, and that the portrayal of Shylock is troubling, which is hardly a unique or a novel opinion, and that he's going to be examining it, which is hardly new. For god's sake, people.

>>4100264
So if it's a product of its time, why does it the text that needs to be changed when it already allows you to produce the play casting Shylock as a villain, or sympathetic?

>Book
Get out.

>>4100232
calm down man the folio Jew isn't going to get you today
what was the population of Jews in England in Shakestaff's time, anyway? I don't really know myself but it's usually overestimated, at least in the Middle Ages when people would write "on such and such a date we burned 500 Jews" in the chronicles so as to seem more pious or whatever

>>4100222
he also did Othello in moorface though

>>4100043

You would have hated this year's production of MoV at the Stratford Festival in Ontario.

The play was set in pre-war Italy. Antonio and the other gentile Venetians were either portrayed as a) clueless playboys or b) devious villains.

Meanwhile, Shylock and Tubal were cast as clean, model citizens who're constantly getting rocks thrown at them by fascist children.

Thankfully, Shakespeare's writing didn't support this non-stop Jewish pandering.

Example:

You could tell the director desperately wanted to make Jessica (Shylock's daughter) an unsympathetic character. But he couldn't -- because that would have undermined Portia's wisdom. Given Portia's exalted status as a feminist icon, there's no way the director could have gotten away with that.

Basically, all the director's changes worsened the play. It made much less sense.

Honestly, there is no way to remake MoV as an "anti-anti-Semetic" play. Shakespeare's plotting is too solid.

Thank God for that.

>>4100236
1936 isn't contemporary, boyo.

>>4100347
It is in terms of Shakespearean productions considering there have been few widespread innovations in how Shakespeare is staged.

Acting techniques have mostly stagnated into an ill defined "method" that is mostly neutered Stanislavski. Actors performing Macbeth in 1936, 1976, and 2006 with unabridged text, set in Scotland would appear remarkably similar.

Shakespeare's longevity is sometimes at the expense of innovation. Acting having stagnated into an incomprehensible desire for realism and only realism means that a production of Macbeth in 1936 is indeed a contemporary boyo.

"...More suggestive of what was to come was the translation of two Italian stories, 'Titus and Gisippus' and 'Romeus and Juliet,' both shortly to be employed as subjects for drama..."
- English Literature during the Lifetime of Shakespeare by Schelling, 1928

Face it, Shakespeare edited other people's stories too. The quote above refers to plays translated in 1557 - 8 years before Shakespeare's birth. Not to mention Shakespeare's work has been edited plenty of times before. Hell, this weekend Shakespeare in the Park put on a hip hop musical performance of The Tempest. For people who spend their lives reading and rereading Shakespeare, as shocking as it sounds, sometimes you like to change things up every once in a while. To me this is pretty much on par with Dan Brown's retroactive meditations on Dante and Davinci. I don't care and I'm not going to read them.

>>4100324
>moorface
why is this so damn funny

So much anti-Semitism in this thread.

>>4100446

>>4100295
I don't know what your objection to "book" in this case is? I'm using the term, obviously, to refer to the novel that Jacobson is writing.

As for the rest of it - it doesn't need to be changed (and I don't know if Jacobson would agree with me, but I think it's completely possible that he would agree with me). It's fine as it is - a product of its time, and a great play. Writing a new thing that's an interpretation or a reworking of it doesn't mean that it needs to be changed, it just means you want to do something new with it or reinterpret it, because that's interesting or for whatever reason you might have, and that's all that Jacobson is doing, at least as far as we know. It's a perfectly ordinary thing.

>>4100446
Not really surprising unfortunately.

harold bloom says merchant of venice is antisemitic but still a master piece

>>4100446

Its like anothah shoah!

I saw a production of Midsummer Night's Dream set in 1960's America once.

>>4100446

>implying its undeserved

>some guy is doing something i dont like

just ignore it dood

>>4100690
That's so original. It's almost as unique and insightful as the production of Macbeth in gangland Chicago I saw last week.

>>4100043
Everyone should read The Dunciad and realize that Pope predicted the end times.

May the Goddess Dullness have mercy on us all.

>>4100761

Dulness*

>>4100485
It's a play. And so everyone you said has been invalidated. Theatre is tied closely to literature so this is the best place to discuss it but Shakespeare didn't write novels, he writes plays and people who write reinterpretations of his work meant for production(which this will surely be) write plays, not novels.

It was meant to be produced and not read. People who treat plays as literature and not performance have flawed ideas about them. Yes the literary aspects such as narrative structure are there, but what it is on stage is so much more paramount.

>>4100690
After the original setting, that is the most common type of production of Midsummer because it fits and is easy

>>4100446

http://vocaroo.com/i/s01AjvAop9FL

>>4102564
I love you.

>>4102564
what is the religious significance of the fucking sideburns. good lord. the torah never says wear your sideburns in the gayest way imaginable.

>>4102634

how dare you insult the פֵּאוֹת of G-ds chosen people! Shame on you, you Nazi!

>>4102564
>>4102589
MacFarlane drones please remove yourselves

>>4102634
yes it does

>>4102634
2 second google search:

>The Torah says, "You shall not round off the peyos of your head" (Leviticus 19:27). The word peyos refers to sideburns -- i.e. the hair in front of the ears that extends to underneath the cheekbone which is level with the nose (Talmud - Makkot 20a). The Talmud explains that this law only applies to men, not to women.

>>4102650
top lel

>jews

>>4102646

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1FTnRi8N59e

>>4102646
>these retarded assumptions
What do sub-par animated sitcoms have to do with anything?

are we /pol/ now?

>>4102658

Are we not allowed to discuss literature now?

Good heavens, can we not have a single thread without someone crying "omg those scheming nazi's at /pol/ are behind this!" ?

>>4102656
That voice is based on one of his retarded characters or might be recorded directly

>>4102653
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvsDMveXfIk

>>4102667

>recorded directly

He says "this thread is full of anti-semitic bastids...". I cant imagine one of those characters complaining about a thread.

>>4102667
Just sounds like a stereotypical Noo Yawk Jew voice to me.

>>4102664
I'm referring to all the comments that are blatantly something that would get posted on /pol/, not the literature.related ones.

>>4102669
I didn't listen that closely for obvious reasons
>>4102670
maybe, but the higher pitch and register at least seemed to be drawn from it, rather than a more robust spot-on voice as can be heard in The Simpsons

>>4102681

>something offends you
>don't listen to it

Ah, you'd be wonderful in a debate wouldn't you?

>>4102680

>people on different boards share opinions on certain subjects and so this is reflected in their comments when one of said subjects is part of the discussion

unbelievable, isn't it?

>>4102684
The ability to filter out obvious garbage isn't really a bad thing.
What did that recording teach you, how did you feel enriched by it
please don't bump this thread with your shit posts

>>4102684
he's probably a jew rite xD

>>4102687
Linking to a parody of a jewish voice is hardly an "opinion". Nor are many of the other /pol/-like Jew-bashing comments.

>>4102693

http://vocaroo.com/i/s1Zs9OJHLTos

>>4102702
Great contribution to the literature discussion

huge-nosed kike rewrites a play to cast his tribe in a positive light, what a surprise

/pol/ is taking over 4chan.
Not even on /lit/ I can take a break

>>4102710
>containment board

yeah, that went well

>>4102681
>Jews arguing against the facts with ignorant rhetoric
What else is new.

>>4102710

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer

guess what stage we are entering?

>>4102727
Finally the world can learn the truth of the great merchant. Hopefully he will be expelled once and for all from our world.

>>4102727
A fourth one, when people just poop truths on the keyboard because hell it's the internet and no one cares about anything. After all, just taking a dump feels awesome and what else do we need?

>>4102727
I thought it was just people's honest opinions behind the veil of anonymity because we're really all racists underneath but the Jews won't like that.

>>4102774
you're a bit simple aren't you?

inb4 you're a bit Jewish aren't you?

>>4102774
First of all Jews aren't a race, it is a religion. And it is in fact bigoted that the Jews feel so mega-important that they need a special word to define bigotry.

>>4102794
>Jews aren't a race, it is a religion
Highly debatable.

>>4100148
We'd be without Einstein, Oppenheimer, Bhor, Faynemen, Spinoza, and Husserl

>>4102774
>we're really all racists underneath

Yeah, in the sense of having a pathological desire to rationalize why we aren't living in fucking Utopia - we need someone or something to blame for the fact that we are never satisfied. Maybe if we remove this group of people, we will finally attain pure perennial bliss! Obviously the same problems in the social edifice will continue as the system is exploited, taken over by a new group and the scapegoat will become another group who are to blame for the fact that we still aren't satisfied and surely it must be that idiosyncratic group we can't quite understand

>>4102794
No. You get secular jews. I agree though it isn't a race. Largely, of course, because one finds jews amongst many races - Indian, Chinese, African. More correctly, it is an identity or, as I prefer, something along the lines of a large and extended family because, of course, one is considered Jewish by virtue of a blood connection. You can, though, most definitely be jewish and not be religious in any way.

>>4102794
SLOW THE FUCK DOWN MOTHERFUCKER

I had an athiest Jewish Israeli penpal, and it's much more complicated than that.

Judaism is a religion, but there is also the Jewish race. Very often these go hand in hand, however there are athiest jews. And apparently in Israel many people believe no only that if you are of the Jewish race you MUST be of the Jewish religion (a sore point amongst the athiest population there), but also that if you are not of the Jewish race you CANNOT be of the Jewish religion. Don't rub your ignorance over this complex bznz

>>4102814
Well I dunno about your sarcasm. Racially homologous countries tend to have less problems though (with the exception of black nations because they are instinctivily stupid and violent)

>>4102837
There is no such thing as "the Jewish race"

Unless by "the Jewish race" you mean century inbred white folks

>>4102848
Doesn't change a thing

>>4102848
>It totally works, except for this. Let's call it "an exception" and move one. Nailed it.

>>4102794
>What's an ethno-religious group?

>>4102854

>First of all Jews aren't a race, it is a religion.

Jews are an ethnoreligious group, that is to say an ethnicity as well as a religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group

>>4102814

>we need someone or something to blame

No, we naturally dislike people who say they control our media and want to enslave us

>Israels top Rabbi: Gentiles only exist to serve Jews

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/10/18/2741341/rabbi-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews

http://web.archive.org/web/20120702204443/http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/who-is-funding-the-rabbi-who-endorses-killing-gentile-babies-1.4005

>The Times of Israel: Jews DO control the media

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

>LA Times Columnist: "As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

Also, see >>4100127

>>4102848
>Racially homologous countries tend to have less problems though
This is your claim.

The guy responded to said:
>in the sense of having a pathological desire to rationalize why we aren't living in fucking Utopia - we need someone or something to blame for the fact that we are never satisfied. Maybe if we remove this group of people, we will finally attain pure perennial bliss! Obviously the same problems in the social edifice will continue as the system is exploited, taken over by a new group and the scapegoat will become another group who are to blame for the fact that we still aren't satisfied and surely it must be that idiosyncratic group we can't quite understand

Do you not see how you are confirming the above claim?
It's the creation (or indeed the need) for an ideological scapegoat that gives birth to unsettled, violent, and less problem-filled as you say.

>>4102889
more* problem-filled

>>4102862
>Ethnic homogeneity not working for blacks means it doesn't work for whites and Northeast Asian

>>4102886
it's a psychological construct which goes far beyond the control of media - itos inherent in your psyche

>>4102897

It's not really, I never had any dislike of Jews until I read what I linked in that post. There are very few Jews in my country so I would have no need to 'scapegoat' them anyhow.

I know this may seem an alien idea to you, but I base my dislikes on fact and reason, not emotion.

>>4102727
All bullshit passes through three stages. First, it's ridiculed. Second, it's still ridiculed, but some witless cretins feel like being contrary and start eating the bullshit. Three, it's still ridiculed, but the witless cretins are now so full of shit they start trying to push other people neck-deep into the bovine leavings. They never leave the third stage, and die with the taste of poo on their tongues.

>>4102903
you don't control your unconscious.
Whatever is in your links - I haven't read them - might be true. Still doesn't change anything

>>4102886
And you could easily find white men saying the same things, and they too have a lot of power - far more than the Jews. So should we hate white men, or maybe we should just distance ourselves from those rare individuals who proclaim the superiority of one group over another?

Your choice.

>Jacobson write books
>Get praised like genius by Jewish critics in NY Papers
>Works get studied as critical theory in literature
>jewish professors write books about the difference of the books
>the grand irony of making money and commercializing even The Merchant of Venice

jews never fail to jew do they

>>4102925
I've most likely been here longer than, but no thanks. I like greentexting as much as the next.

>>4102922
Please return to /pol/.

>>4102928
Then, at least, please don't post /pol/-like posts here. You know it just destroys the board.

>>4102907

We are discussing why I dislike something. I present facts as my reason for not disliking x. You neglect to read said facts and instead choose to say that even if they are true it makes no difference.

The fact that you didn't even deign to take a glance at material presented to you in an arguement reflects poorly on you. The fact that you also claim my dislike in this case is not based on facts but on my 'unconscious' is nothing more than an assumption. I had no problem with Jews in general until I had read the aforementioned information.Its quite safe to say that in this case my dislike was brought about by education on the matter, not an unconscious hatred.

>>4102936
Read this: >>4102919

>>4102919

Can you please link me a powerful white religious figure who is also a prominent politician who called for the enslavement of humanity in recent years?

Can you please link me a statement of a prominent white religious figure saying that the slaughter of non-white children is permissible?

And can you see my problem with a minority (of the same religion, ethnicity and culture as the above linked) that makes up 0.002% of our population controlling our media?

>>4102936
>I had no problem with Jews in general until I had read the aforementioned information

You're an idiot if you think that you weren't deeply entrenched in ideology and its constructed ideological figures and prejudices.

>>4102938

I have read it and just responded to it, but that is irrelevant. it does not address our particular argument and does not in any way prove your assumptions.

>>4102935
He can post what he likes. It pertains to the discussion. Quit trying to censor people.

>>4102944
>Can you please link me a powerful white religious figure who is also a prominent politician who called for the enslavement of humanity in recent years?
George Bush

>>4102954
I'm not trying to censor people. I'm trying to keep /pol/ in /pol/.

>>4102950

My ideology has no prejudices towards anyone on the basis of ethnicity or religion.

>>4102959
Sure you are.

>>4102956

Please go ahead and link us this statement in which he outright and openly called for the enslavement of humanity.

>>4102960
ideology is written into reality.

>>4102944
>And can you see my problem with a minority (of the same religion, ethnicity and culture as the above linked) that makes up 0.002% of our population controlling our media?

No. The problem is a system allowing ownership of what should be a common good. Who actually owns it is fucking irrelevant.

>>4102919

>we should just distance ourselves from those rare individuals who proclaim the superiority of one group over another?

I forgot to address this. Yes, I agree completely.

>>4102984
Good, so you don't hate Jews then? You have nothing against them? You are healing, anon.

>>4100135
I shouldn't have laughed as hard as I did.

>>4102992

That is a fallacy.

I can dislike something without proclaiming superiority over it or calling it inferior.

>>4102998
Ah. You are a lost cause. May God have mercy on your soul.

>>4102998
what do you dislike about Jews?

>>4103001

to expand further, I simply dislike those who control the media, and those who view all others as inferior.

Those who control the media just happen to be Jews.

>The Times of Israel: Jews DO control the media

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jews-do-control-the-media/

>LA Times Columnist: "As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column

And the majority of people who view others as inferior (and hold such views to be acceptable) are also Jews.

>Israels top Rabbi: Gentiles only exist to serve Jews

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/10/18/2741341/rabbi-yosef-non-jews-exist-to-serve-jews

http://web.archive.org/web/20120702204443/http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=191782

>>4102681
>Oy vey it's like the shoah in this thread!

>>4103000

Reason now makes one a lost cause?

Such are the times I suppose.

>>4103009
And white men rule politics, the military, industry, and they've tried to kill all non-whites in the past.

I fucking hate whites.

>>4102794
It's only a religion when it's convenient for them. If criticized a jew in public, I'd be called a racist.

>>4103009
you should dislike powerful capitalist swine instead (they aren't all Jews).

The thing with judaism is, and this is why there have always been problems with it from its surrounding cultures (not all) is that it really is about exclusivity. One is jewish by blood which means, of course, that one is closer to God or 'chosen' by virtue of having this blood and little else. Of course that rankles a particularly post-Christian world, as it did their Christian forebears, because Christianity, and its subsequent extensions into a post-Christian world, is very much inclusive and anyone, by being Christian can be close to God, and then subsequently in a more extended sense, is capable of excellence.

Naturally, though, this should never have been a problem because Christians have formulas whereby their version of a messiah automatically supercedes the 'chosen' element and they have baptism, which was intended as a way to extend a form of metaphorical group relationship to them too.

Alas, though, humanity seems to be humanity endlessly and without fail. Charges that the jews are an elitist group that don't intermingle or wish to subsume the larger surrounding culture are simply untrue and thoroughly unfair. Of course, it's very easy to say they are by selecting the ramblings of one or two individuals but they shouldn't be considered as representative of a whole any more than some bible thumping evangelist represents Christianity. It may be true that jewish people show up more in certain industries but suggesting they do so in order to manipulate leaves wide open the fact, of course, that plenty of jewish people also consume that same media. There are also very real and quite poignant reasons why they are found en masse in other industries. For instance, the diamond trade is because the diamond industry in Antwerp historically was guild free which meant it was one of the few industries jews could work in at all.

So yeah. My point is basically that I get why people might think judaism is all about eltisim and exclusivity and I get why that rankles still in a world that continues to pride inclusivity and opportunity for all but it's really nothing more than simple misunderstanding. Jews have and continue to contribute to all of us in all their adopted cultures and they extend deeply into it too: art, philosophy, literature, science, medicine. All sorts of things. There really isn't any real reason to have a problem with them and it's to humanity's collective shame that there ever was really.

>>4103030
B-but mah charts and diagrams!

>>4103017

>And white men rule politics, the military, industry

Vague over-generalizations, not taking into account nationalities, countries etc. Overall a 6/10 strawman.

>they've tried to kill all non-whites in the past.

1. That is untrue
2. Even if it were, the keyword in that sentence is 'past'. I am pointing out prominent Jewish leaders of today calling for the enslavement of humanity in the 21st century.

>>4103017
Be honest now, anon. You are white aren't you?

People can rewrite classics all they want, and it's been done before.

The fact remains that it's the originals which will continue to be studied, written about, and generally given a fuck about once this guy's dead and not famous anymore.

>>4103030
>because Christianity, and its subsequent extensions into a post-Christian world, is very much inclusive and anyone, by being Christian can be close to God, and then subsequently in a more extended sense, is capable of excellence.

This is what drove me towards Christianity the first time. But then I'm amazed by the hard fact that such an ideology was responsible for a millenium of opression. Then I understood that Christianity has its perks and while everyone is close to God, there are those who are "closer".

>>4103017
>they've tried to kill all non-whites in the past

British fleet pretty much ended slavery
Whites were the first to end slavery
Whites were to first to truly incorporate democracy
Whites stand for the majority of all scientific advances
There is literally not a single field where "whites" hasn't been leading for the last 2000 years

Whatever whites have done in terms of murdering and opression arabs/russians and chinese has done it better.

>>4103038
>Vague over-generalizations, not taking into account nationalities, countries etc. Overall a 6/10 strawman.

Oh god lol. You think Jews control the media in China, Russia, Iran, Uganda? Obviously I was talking about the Western world.

>1. That is untrue
Did you miss the WW II segments of history in high school?

>2. Even if it were, the keyword in that sentence is 'past'. I am pointing out prominent Jewish leaders of today calling for the enslavement of humanity in the 21st century.
And Madeleine Albright said 500 000 dead Iraqi children was a good thing. And Bush explicitly said everyone who wasn't with him - which would mean following his lead - was against him. And Western countries constantly start unilateral military action when the politics of a second or third world country begins to veer against their interests.

Whites don't need to talk about the enslavement of the world, as they have already succeeded in it.

>>4103048
we must be smarter and better people xD

btw im white

>>4103041
I am obviously being facetious to point out how stupid antisemitism is.

>>4103055
>so edgy

It's like you lack any knowledge of real life politics or any insight of real life.

>>4100043

wait is that really his nose?

>>4103060
I don't think you know what edgy means.

Howard Jacobson takes on ‘anti-Semitism’ in rewrite of Shakespeare's 'The Merchant of Venice'

>The Booker prize-winning author Howard Jacobson is to rewrite Shakespeare’s most controversial play, The Merchant of Venice, in a bid to tackle its anti-Semitism. The Jewish writer has vowed to re-explore some of the more debated aspects of the Shakespeare play.

>“Mr Shakespeare probably never met a Jew, the Holocaust had not yet happened, and anti-Semitism did not have a name,” he said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/howard-jacobson-takes-on-antisemitism-in-rewrite-ofshakespeares-the-merchant-of-venice-8804011.html?origin=internalSearch

I cannot express how appalling this is. Its now ok to rewrite classical literature because the villain of the story is a Jew? Not to mention the fact that the charge against him, extortionate usury, is something that was indeed historically practiced by Jews (and still is). This is insanity

>>4103030

>Elitism and exclusivity isn't integral to Judaism!
>Jews have nothing agains't inter-mingling

The primary source upon which the prohibition for a Jew to marry a non-Jew is based is to be found in the Torah.

Deut. 7:3): "You shall not marry them (the gentiles, about which the Bible speaks in the previous verses), you shall not give your daughter to their son and you shall not take his daughter for your son."

The Talmud speaks extensively on the subject (for example Yevamot 23a).

In fact, as this Jewish website points out,

>"The soul of the Jew is different than the soul of the non-Jew. They have different characteristics, potentials and needs. Every Jew has essentially the same type of soul as any other Jew. This Jewish soul is inherited from his or her mother."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/148995/jewish/On-Intermarriage.htm

>>4103062
use google, idiot

>>4103068
Great work. I can see your strong Aryan genes in this flawless execution.

>>4103065
Your marxist utopia, typewriter, partially unknow cigarettes, free jazz records are edgy.

>>4103060

That post contained nothing more than a buzzword you apparently don't understand and an ad-hominem attack.

>>4103079
Yeah, that's far from what edgy means.

>>4103046
Yeah, I get what you mean. It really is about inclusivity and getting everyone in though (Buddhism is similar) hence why you can have such variety of interpretation and adherence but essentially it is never about opting people out so I can never understand all the excluding thst goes on either. What it really comes down to though, of course, is that the first church basically co-opted it and particularly its free-floating and quite volatile mystical elements which then obviously turned into 'accepted' doctines and so on. It's all a bit sad, really.

>>4103075

oh my god it is that's hilarious

>>4103073
If you research a little more, you'll find out that judaism itself has many different views regarding intermarriage. You are quoting just one of them. And no view is final, they actually coexist. It's much more complicated than you think.

>>4103086

>>4103088
He's a racist, he is going to cherrypick and pretend it's representative. He knows other interpretations exist, he just pretends they don't matter.

>>4103080
>b-but muh country so evil

Name a single great leader in history that has ever been a proponent for appeasement or said that a little evil sometimes must be made for the sake of the general good. Politics is the realization that sometimes others must suffer for the better of your citizens. War is human constant, not some sociological construct you get learned that it is.

/lit/'s is so fucking pubescent is unbelievable. Then again most of you will never hold a proper job, ever (ad hominem).

>>4103094
You know, that post is the exact image of edgy. Edgy lite, perhaps, but definitely edgy.

And that's not an ad hominem, that's just an insult.

Terminology's tough, eh?

>>4103073
Yes, I understand. There are plenty of Liberal and Reform jews that don't subscribe to those tenents though just like there are Christians who support gay marriage because they consider it proof of God's universal love. Religions are so varied and so enormously diverse even within themselves that I just think it's a mistake to pull out a text and say that all of them subscribe to it universally. They simply don't. I'm not denying there are those who claim some sense of divine superiority but I would consider those just the usual people who use religions to grind all their ugly personal shit. Happens everywhere all the time; I don't think it's fair to suggest that jews themselves would be immune from the same crap turning up in their midst too.

>>4103088
>actually encouraging a /pol/-mongrel to "research a bit more..."

My sides

>>4103088

"The Talmud and later classical sources of Jewish law are clear that the institution of Jewish marriage, kiddushin, can only be affected between Jews.

All branches of Orthodox Judaism follow the historic Jewish attitudes to intermarriage, and therefore refuse to accept that intermarriages would have any validity or legitimacy, and strictly forbid sexual intercourse with a member of a different faith."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism#Modern_Attitudes

A 2007 opinion survey found that more than half of Israeli Jews believed intermarriage is equivalent to “national treason”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism#Israeli_opposition_to_mixed_marriages_between_Jewish_women_and_Arab_men

>>4103103
It's to the person, he insulted your smartness by saying you'll never land a job.

>>4103092

>He's a racist

But that's simply not true, and I have stated so already in this thread.

>>4103109
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prv9IP5m6ag

Anthony Weiner heckled for inter-racial marriage by other jew

>>4103113
If you hate Jews, you're a racist. Hating an ethnicity is what racism means.

>>4103109
But, again, there are whole swathes of judaism that are not orthodox or traditional orthodox. Conservative, Liberal, Reform. All judaisms. All entirely entitled to interpret their texts as they see fit.

You're being very unfair. You could just as easily attack Christians, Hindus, whatever using the same tactic of pulling out a text and saying it's a universal code. That is simply not the way it works.

>>4103119

Their ethnicity is not the basis of my dislike. Again, Iwe've been through this already, please read >>4103009.

It's as if I've been talking to a wall this entire time...

>>4103123

Jews = people belonging to the Jewish ethnic group
Jewish people = people who follow Judaism

>>4103127
>Their ethnicity is not the basis of my dislike
Oh god lol.

>>4103127
Then you don't hate all Jews, only those who are powerful and hurt your feelings by not caring about your interests

>>4103129
I'm not particularly clear on your point.

>>4103127
You DO hate them on basis of their ethnicity. You don't hate bigotry or media owners or anything - you hate Jews because there are Jews who are bigoted or own media.

And how does the basis matter? Racism is about what you hate, not why.

>ctrl+f "bowdlerize"
>no hits

Are you people really this historically ignorant?

>Thomas Bowdler (/ˈbaʊdlər/; 11 July 1754 – 24 February 1825) was an English physician and philanthropist, best known for publishing The Family Shakspeare, an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's work, edited by his sister Henrietta Maria Bowdler, intended to be more appropriate for 19th century women and children than the original. Although early editions of the work were published with the spelling "Shakspeare", after Bowdler's death, later editions (from 1847) adopted the spelling "Shakespeare", reflecting changes in the standard spelling of Shakespeare's name.[1]
The verb bowdlerise (or bowdlerize)[2] has associated his name with the censorship not only of literature but also of motion pictures and television programmes.

Prudes have been censoring Shakespeare for centuries and it's always backfired. This is either a publicity stunt, an act of literary hubris, or both, that will be mocked and quickly forgotten.

>>4103123

>conservative

"The Conservative Movement in Judaism does not sanction or recognize the Jewish legal validity of intermarriage"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism#Modern_Attitudes

>Liberal/Reform

A very small minority.

>You could just as easily attack Christians, Hindus

Neither of those are ethnoreligious groups, so no, they are a different issue.

>>4103131

What an excellent reply, you rebutted my point perfectly! Alas, you forgot to le downboat me

>>4103139

Pretty much.

>>4103143

>You DO hate them on basis of their ethnicity.

but I don't.

>You don't hate bigotry or media owners or anything

I have now repeatedly denied holding the views you are accusing me of having, and you have yet to provide a shred of proof to show otherwise.

>>4103149
>A very small minority.
No.

How do racists fail facts on such an elementary level?

>>4103161
>I have now repeatedly denied holding the views you are accusing me of having
Yes, because you are, in the next breath, espousing them.

>>4103149
And my point was that judaism is extremely diverse so it still stands.

I don't know what 'tiny minority' means. Are you saying they aren't jews?

And no, it applies. People pull out all sorts of shit from the bible for instance and claim this is what Christians believe when plenty don't. Religions are not lists of rules, they are lived experiences and because they are, they change enormously between groups and even individuals. Waving some text in their face and using it to attack them or suggesting it can be used to indicate some sort of insidiousness on their part happens in all these cases. Being an 'ethnoreligious' group doesn't change that.

>>4100084
it's not like he's erasing the original, dude. what gives?

>>4103162

The 'Progressive' movement, of which Liberal and Reform are both a part of, has around 1.7 million adherents. We can assume that only a certain portion of those are Reform or Liberal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Judaism

>How do racists fail facts on such an elementary level?

1. Again, I am not a racist, please stop calling me one.

2. As I have just shown I was correct, they are indeed a small minority.

>>4103169

Espousing racist views?

Please point out where I have done so. I have repeatedly stated that I do not hate anyone on the basis of ethnicity.

>>4103161
Thus what you really dislike are influentual people who do not care about your interests. Many of these happen to be Jewish.
It's just a contingent fact about your real object of dislike that they happen to be Jewish.

So you don't hate Jewish people a priori.

>>4103181
But so what if they're a 'small minority'? What does that mean? They're not jews? They can't be considered to have anything meaningful to contribute to allay your concerns about jews?

What?

>>4103181
>1. Again, I am not a racist, please stop calling me one.

You are a racist, and thus I will call you one.

>2. As I have just shown I was correct, they are indeed a small minority.

There aren't that many more Orthodox, and they're the plurality.

>>4103187

What I really dislike is a select, distinct group of people who control the media, are influential and view the rest of humanity as slaves.

>It's just a contingent fact about your real object of dislike that they happen to be Jewish.

>So you don't hate Jewish people a priori.

Pretty much.

>>4103186
You care about them being Jews at all. You hate all Jews for the acts of a few.

Why does it matter that they are Jews? For someone who is not racist, it does not matter. To you, it does.

>>4103196

>But so what if they're a 'small minority'? What does that mean?

mi·nor·i·ty

A group having little power or representation relative to others within a larger group.

Their views are not relevant to me, I am concerned only with those who have power and representation, as you quite well know.

>>4103207
Most powerful Jews in America are Reform Jews.

>>4103207
And so he confirms what was said here: >>4103092

Explicitly, even.

Isn't it adorable?

>>4103201

>You hate all Jews for the acts of a few.

I dislike Jews in general because they are likely to have views I do not like or carry out actions I do not like. I do not dislike 'all' Jews.

>Why does it matter that they are Jews?

I dislike a group of people because of their views and actions. That group of people is referred to as 'Jews', and so that is how I refer to them.

If an ethnoreligious group from Panama controlled the media and viewed the rest of humanity as slaves then I would dislike them.

>>4103222
Exactly, so you are a racist. This isn't hard.

>>4103216

What exactly did I confirm?

You're just raving now.

>>4103207
Actually, I didn't know that.

I think I'll opt out this conversation now. I can see your point but at the end of the day, and very simply, I think you're simply choosing to be beligerent on this even though everything you've raised has been more than reasonably responded to. I guess I agree with the other people. Maybe you're not a racist but you're reasoning like a bigot and that's just bad and you should not think it's a good thing. I hope the next jewish person you come across that helps you or smiles at you or whatever never gets to see how little you think of them. So much for accusing them of 'superiority'.

>>4103229
That you will ignore everything but what you need to justify your hate.

>>4103222
How about Rupert Murdoch? Steve Jobs, back when he was alive? Arianna Huffington? All these other media magnates?

Why does it matter that a majority of them are Jews? That's a simple trivium, if you really disliked the way media ownership works. It's irrelevant.

>>4103227

Are you deliberately misunderstanding my posts?

I just said that I do not hate them because of their race or religion. I said I would dislike any clearly defined people if they controlled the media and viewed all others as slaves.

If Jehova's witnesses suddenly declared that only French people could join, somehow took over the media and then held that everyone else were slaves then I would dislike them too.

>>4103230

>I think you're simply choosing to be beligerent on this even though everything you've raised has been more than reasonably responded to.

Come now, lets be factual here. I have responded to every post in a civil and reasonable manner. That can not be said of those on the other side, who repeatedly threw ad hominem attacks and ignored my points.

>>4103241
You lack nuance and precision. This leads you to undirected hate, which you clumsily justify with cherrypicking facts.

"I detest Rabbi Yosef" makes sense - but "I detest Rabbi Yosef, so therefore I hate Jews" does not. Other Jews are not responsible for what he says - they accept or reject it individually. So why is that generalization there at all? Why is his ethnic-religious allegiance important?

>>4103247
>who repeatedly threw ad hominem attacks
Where?

>>4103238

I'm afraid the only one here thats ignoring anything is you.

>Why does it matter that a majority of them are Jews?

Because many Jews happen to hold the view that all non-Jews are born to be their slaves, that we are inherently inferior to them. People who view others like that should not be in control of such an influential and powerful medium.

>>4103257
>Because many Jews happen to hold the view that all non-Jews are born to be their slaves

But do those particular Jews do it? And why does non-Jews in media holding reprehensible ideas get slack cut for them?

>>4103253

>>4103131
>>4103000

Two examples of incivility, feel free to search through the thread yourself. I consider all lo those calling me a racist to be ad-hominem too.

>>4103271
None of those are ad hominem.

>>4103271
Insults are not ad hominem.

And you are a racist, sorry bruv.

>>4103278

>Insults are not ad hominem

I hope your not serious

ad ho·mi·nem

marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

>>4103257
When you say "many" here, you're really talking about sixty or seventy mildly metally ill people in brainwashed ultra orthadox sects far from any kind of power, who are an embarassment to the rest in the same way neonazis embarass the germans and Klanners embarass the south.

Anybody who seriously holds to the idea that somebody is "born to be his slave" by some sort of divine right is a lunatic. I doubt anyone that warped could hold his bowels, let alone a position of high responsibility.

>>4103282
I am serious. Ad hominem is a fallacy where you say someone is wrong because they are X (X doesn't even have to be negative).

Being insulting when arguing is not a fallacy.

>>4103250

Rabbi Yosef happens to be "the most important living halachic authority."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovadia_Yosef

he also happens to be leader of the Shas party, which "is currently Israel's fourth largest party in the Knesset, and, according to The Jewish Daily Forward, "the unchallenged kingmaker of Israeli politics".[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shas

So yes, I think we can safely assume his views are widely held, and at the very least, seen as acceptable to hold.

>>4103284

please see

>>4103291

>>4103285

Apologies then, I thought personal attacks constituted ad-hominem.

>216 posts and 19 image replies omitted
>mostly politics
>/lit/

>>4103291
Oh no, fourth largest! But Reform Judaism is the third largest branch of modern Judaism, and that one was an insignificant minority.

Yes, of course others hold his views. That does not mean conclusing you can treat any member of the group as accepting it.

If something is not essential to being part of a group, any other property you can have will vary by individual, and therefore you should judge those as individuals. This is a very elementary rule of thumb.

>>4103304

>But Reform Judaism is the third largest branch of modern Judaism, and that one was an insignificant minority.

Reform Judaism is a small group within a minority, Shas is the fourth largest party in the country.

You missed the bit where it said he was the most important living halachic authority too.

>Yes, of course others hold his views. That does not mean conclusing you can treat any member of the group as accepting it.

Again, I think we can safely assume his views are widely held, and at the very least, seen as acceptable to hold. If they were not widely held he would be in jail, if they were not widely seen as ok to hold he would not still have such influence and authority.

>>4103321
>Reform Judaism is a small group within a minority, Shas is the fourth largest party in the country.
There's two to three million Orthodox Jews, and almost two million Reform Jews. The difference is very small.

And yes, fourth largest party. So an analogy is UKIP in Britain - do you think UKIP is representative of Anglo-saxon mentality? That I can judge all Anglos as if they were basically UKIP members?

The two ruling parties of America are both essentially in favour of wars of intervention. Many religious authorities are too - look at Pat Robertson. So can I judge all white Americans as being essentially in favour of wars of intervention? Or supporting Israel?

Of course not. You judge that on a person by person basis. Whether they are white, American, Christian or not doesn't really matter. There are statistical tendencies, but they say nothing of an individual. But Jews, apparently, are different. They are a statistical black hole, where falsifying cases do not matter and even the most extreme outliers confirming the thesis are seen as representative for the entire sample.

32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord.

33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

34 These are the commandments, which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai.

35 Oh, and before I forget it, being Jewish is no big deal. It's not anything special or anything. In fact, why not? Let's make everybody a Jew. Sure now everybody is one of God's chosen people. Even Hitler. Now can everybody relax? Oy!


See how easy that was? and sine it was written by a Jew under the divine mandate of God himself, it has the force of ultimate authority. See, often the easy path is the one everybody overlooks.

Who cares? It's not like Shakespeare's work will be eradicated from existence.

All this will accomplish is the author proving to the world that he is not Shakespeare.

>>4103337
Being Jewish is more like an added responsibility than a good thing. Gentiles have an easier time going to heaven.

>>4103343
Don't make me edit the Bible any more. I can Make The Wu Tang Clan one of the twelve tribes if I want to.

>>4103350
Can you put in a good word for the kosher restaurant down the street? Business isn't doing so well and I like them, they're cool guys.

>>4103331

>There's two to three million Orthodox Jews, and almost two million Reform Jews.

There are over 13 million Jews, only 1.7 million of whom are progressive, and only some of those who are reform.

>And yes, fourth largest party. So an analogy is UKIP in Britain

Is Nigel Farage held as the most important living authority on Christian law? If he was, would he have as much influence or power as Ovadia Yosef seeing as less British people are religious?

>So can I judge all white Americans as being essentially in favour of wars of intervention?

You can assume that the majority either support it or are indifferent e3nough to see at as an acceptable course of action.

>You judge that on a person by person basis. But Jews, apparently, are different.

see >>4103222

>>4103361
>There are over 13 million Jews, only 1.7 million of whom are progressive, and only some of those who are reform.
I've said this about three times now but there are not that many more Orthodox, they are around two million. And this is globally.

>Is Nigel Farage held as the most important living authority on Christian law? If he was, would he have as much influence or power as Ovadia Yosef seeing as less British people are religious?

How does this matter for the structure of the argument? It's utterly irrelevant tosh.

For horrible religious white people, I already mentioned Pat Robertson. Good luck finding a Rabbi Yosef with that kind of power and influence.

>see >>4103222

That is not an answer.

>>4103017
So uhh... most jews are white?

>>4102794

>Jews aren't a race, it is a religion

....Except when it helps Jews to recognize themselves as a race, of course.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-speakers-who-want-to-immigrate-could-need-dna-test/

But don't worry -- this could change tomorrow, when Jews would rather be seen as a people united by religion.

Better not worry your pretty goyishe kop about it.... It's a Jew thing.

>>4102935

His post was germane.

It might not have been what you wanted to hear, but it was relevant to discussion at hand.

nice try, though

>>4103434

Short answer: "No," with a "but..."

Long answer: "Oy gevalt!" with "Muh 6 million...."

>>4100043
Anything can be rewritten. But the original master work must still be referred to.

>>4103539
his post was a vague guess about the author's intention based on a stereotype
I highly doubt we'd get much done if I posted about every male author using literature to extend his phallus in every thread about male authors

>>4103148

>This is either a scheme to make shekels, an act of Jewish hubris, or both, that will be mocked and quickly forgotten.

FTFY

Shocking number of cunts, retards, and anti-semites.

Protip: Putting on a production of Shakespeare is an act of censorship.

You choose the scenes to cut. You choose how to play things. Comparing two productions of the same play can literally reverse the meaning of the whole thing. Only idiots would go 'oh, the bard, the bard' when somebody does a rewrite.

Also, the ironic (and even more retarded) dimension to this thread is that many of Shakespeare's plays are rewrites. Lear is a rewrite, Hamlet a rewrite of the tradgedy of Amleth - literally, three quarters of them have a precursor.

>>4100043
>I cannot express how appalling this is. Its now ok to rewrite classical literature because the villain of the story is a Jew? Not to mention the fact that the charge against him, extortionate usury, is something that was indeed historically practiced by Jews (and still is). This is insanity
lol, idiot

Shakespeare's works have been rewritten, reinterpreted and played with so much it isn't even funny. Good for him I'm actually really interested in what will result. Many productions of MoV utilize gesture and omission to shape the play into a less prejudiced work, and often that succeeds.

This should be interesting.

>>4103600
This

Ugh... Scrolling up through this thread I can already tell its a shitstorm of ridiculously ignorant rhetoric.

>>4103600
>anti-semites
My 6 quadrillions!

Seriously, the word you are looking for is bigotry. When you use that asinine word you out yourself as a Jew who claims superiority to all others.

>>4103704
Oh, look, an anti-semite.

>>4103707
Oh look, a racist.

Anyone who uses that word has it in their mind that one group of people is inherently superior to all others. The fact that you need a special word to describe general bigotry.

>>4103735
>>/pol/

>>4103735
...I'm not actually jewish.

I think the word 'anti-semite' is useful because hostility towards the jews traditionally works differently ordinary racism. While racists depict jews as devilish - knowing no morality, enticing christians into pacts, and so on, racists depict black people as primordial - unable to learn 'the word' - language, logic.

>>4103766

"M-mom, I'm losing an argument on /lit/ again!"

"Just tell them to go back to /pol/, sweetie."

>>4103911
Oh look, another anti-semite.

>>4103911
i'm just a bystander who noticed that you sound like someone from /pol/

>>4103914
>Implying jews are semetic

>>4103735
That's actually a really stupid thing to say, though.

>Shakespeare
>A London socialite
>Not knowing any jews

Yeah, keep telling yourself that, you retarded kike

>>4103922
The Jews were expelled from England long before Shakespeare, idiot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Expulsion

Glad to see you know your history.

>>4103929
#rekt

>>4100084
I mean, the idea of "Oh no, it's anti-semitic, get rid of it!" pisses me off, but I'm not against rewrites or new takes on old works, and if the translator goes at it with the goal of "Well, in the modern day, the context has changed, and so I'm going to try and rewrite this play so that it will be received as it would have been in its original context," then it could be a cool project.

This mod is a fucking joke

>>4103981
Yeah, he deleted a pretty decent thread about movies yesterday. I wish he just enforced the rule of deleting shitposting.

>>4103977
that's exactly what's fucking happening you fucking numbskulls

fuck

NO ONE IS GETTING RID OF THE MERCHANT OF VENICE

>>4103981
>this mod

Boards don't have mods, mods are global. Boards have janitors who can request bans. Janitors can delete threads.

The more you know.

But I agree, this dyke cunt is shit-tier. She deleted a thread of mine once asking /lit/ what activities (hiking, etc) inspire you to write, as it was "off topic," and then got me banned for a day for making a thread about what we're all studying, if anything, and how we feel that affects our writing.

>>4103995
>..'dyke cunt'.
...
I don't want your agreement. What the fuck is it with /lit/ and fucking bizarre reactionary shitposting?

>>4103995
fuck off, shithead

>>4103929
Well then, you win.

I still think it's kind of ridiculous to rewrite a shakespeare play because a character's portrayal offends you.

>>4104029
That's not why he's rewriting it. He's rewriting it because Penguin Random House wants a big hullabaloo on Shakespeare's fourth centenary. Addressing anti-semitism is just what Jacobson apparently decided to do as part of it.

It's kind of a tired thing to rehabilitate Shylock, though. Everyone's done it. Heck the notion that he's really stealthily sympathetically portrayed in the original play is pretty widespread, though I am unsure about the veracity of that.

Does nobody read the thread, answers to the same shitty questions were answered in the first 50 posts.

The mods at be please burn this thread.

>>4104001

>fucking bizarre reactionary

Nope. 4chan culture. (Which has become increasingly influenced by /pol/.)

>shitposting

Discussions about MoV always seem to lead to impassioned debates. I agree with Bloom: the play's both anti-semetic and a masterpiece. That makes it difficult for many people -- especially Jews -- to accept.

Given the number of self-professed Jews on /lit/, their emotional reaction to perceived anti-semitism in this thread is understandable. Whether or not the counter-reactions on the part of /pol/sters is "shitposting" is debatable.

Overall, I'm glad the janitor is keeping this thread going.

>>4104041

The play is too tight to allow for major tampering. There's no way Shylock can come off as a wholly sympathetic character.

A lot of it has to do with the betrayal of his daughter, Jessica, and the overwhelming charity with which she's treated by the virtuous gentile characters. (Especially Portia, who's like the paragon of feminism.)

>>4104150
... Fuck you and your idea that other people are having 'emotional reactions'. This thread has been obviously fucking anti-semetic. Anti-semetism is inherently shit, and therefore all anti-semites are, when posting in that capacity, shit posters.

And, for your buttfucking information, I'm not jewish. Not even a tiny bit. I just happen to think that anti-semetism is about the foulest characteristic a man can have.

>>4104169

[emotional reaction intensifies]

>>4104150
I'm a Catholic, actually. The anti-semitism is just so out of place and besides the point in this thread. The reaction is just so wildly out of proportion to anything that's happening.

>>4104182

>The anti-semitism is just so out of place and besides the point in this thread.

Did I miss something?

Howard Jacobson is rewriting The Merchant of Venice to "correct" its anti-Semitic content.

How do you expect people to react to this? In your opinion, how SHOULD people react to this?

Moreover, is it right to muffle the voice of people who oppose Jacobson's work? Is it right to muffle the voice of those who think that Jewish influence is hurting Western culture?

I don't think is it.

Be strong. Don't let yourself get "offended" so easily.

>>4104209
>Is it right to muffle the voice of those who think that Jewish influence is hurting Western culture?

Yes. I would happily suffocate every single one of you motherfuckers with a pillow.

>>4104209
> In your opinion, how SHOULD people react to this?
"What an unoriginal waste of time."

> Is it right to muffle the voice of those who think that Jewish influence is hurting Western culture?
No one is trying to muffle you. You're just stupid and wrong.

>>4104209
I'm not offended; I just think your position is idiotic. I'm not trying to silence your voice; I'm just saying you're an idiot. You're mis-characterizing (at least by implication, or at best reacting bizarrely to) Jacobson's intent here - he's "correcting" it in the sense that he's writing a new work about what he regards as the anti-Semitism of Merchant of Venice. I really don't see how that can be objectionable in itself, and certainly I don't see how it could be the grounds for such an outbreak of anti-Semitism as has occurred in its thread; at best, you have a disagreement over your interpretation of the text, which is hardly grounds for the sort of things that people have been saying. It's just bizarre and absurd and out of all proportion.

>>4104209

too late, anon. time to say goodnight to all authors who were anti-semitic.

pic related. soon knut hamsun's work will only be accessible to scholars who have shown the capacity to withstand the anti-semitic influence of his works -- which are terrible, of course, because all anti-semites are stupid and backward.

>>4104222
Okay apparently >>4104220
IS trying to muffle you. Ignore him.

>>4104223
And just to add, I do agree with the other anon who said it is pretty unoriginal and uninteresting.

>>4104222

another author who was stupid and wrong and whose work should be "corrected"

>>4104232
Whoa, watch it with all that straw, it could catch fire.

Look, anti-semites are already hated. You don't have to invent more hatred for you to feel persecuted by. It's already there.

>>4104224
>>4104232
The thing that confuses me about this is that no one has said that anti-Semitic authors shouldn't be read. No one is saying that Merchant of Venice shouldn't be read. Even the people who are defending Jacobson aren't saying that - even Jacobson isn't saying that - but you're actually responding to someone who is on your fucking side. What are you on about ?

>>4104229

totally agree. here's another author who's pretty unoriginal and uninteresting.

>>4104240
I said that Jacobson's project was unoriginal, you maniac fucking nutbag

I don't understand what is wrong with wanting to kill anti-semites. They've been behind the worst crimes in history.

>>4104236
>Look, anti-semites are already hated.

Debatable. If you live in America, you're probably right.

>>4104248
Because it's a stupid overreaction and just fuels their already ridiculous persecution complex, and because they're humans too, and because it's hypocritical? You know, for starters.

>>4104255
Maybe you could make a case for it in Gaza, but that's about it.

>>4104169

You are such a jew it hurts.


I learned today that /lit/ was actually the most jewish board on 4chan. Not surprising, considering I already knew it was liberal as fuck.

>>4104262
It's not an overreaction. First they're talking out of the side of their mouths, then out of their lips, then they're organizing pogroms. I literally see nothing that justifies their tasteless existence.

>>4104267
That's fine, just go away

>>4104222

I don't understand the immediate recourse to ad hominem attacks.

I know you've been conditioned to think that anyone who critiques Jewish cultural influence is "stupid" and an "idiot" -- but can you explain how this influenced has benefited literature?

>>4104271
They are human beings, I suppose.

Minimizing this fucking faggot fest, dear god. How this has not been caught by the mods yet is beyond me.

>>4104281
Huh. I guess. Kneecapping then. Kneecapping is humane.

>>4104271

>organizing pogroms

Right. Wonderful.

God forbid we allow any critique of Jews or Jewish culture. One little crack in the dyke and it all comes falling down on the Jews' heads.

Is there a race more aggressively sensitive?

>>4104278
>ad hominem attacks.

How many fucking times must one thread mention this? Ad hominem isn't just insults. Ad hominem is when you say something is wrong because of who says it, it's an informal fallacy.

>but can you explain how this influenced has benefited literature?
I don't think in terms of "Jewish cultural influence". But I like Kafka, I guess. We would be much worse off without him. Does that count? I have no idea what you actually mean.

>>4104271
It is, they're a political irrelevance.

>>4104302
not just Kafka, there were hell of awesome Jewish Viennese writers in Kafka's generation & the generations around him

>>4104307
Yeah he's just an example. I doubt this guy actually means anything concrete by what he's saying, so no need to go overboard.

>>4104301
I'm not actually jewish. I just really fucking hate anti-semites.

>>4104307

What other Jewish writers apart from Max Brod?

No fair listing Bruno Schulz. He was a Polish Jew.

>>4104327
all writers of the Bible with the exception of Luke

>>4104338
wait, "of Kafka's time" nvm
was Robert Walser Jewish?
not saging to post faster

>>4104338
They're talking about Jewish Viennese writers dude you're off by a few centuries and a few miles

>>4104327
Karl Kraus, if he counts as a writer. Döblin, I think?

>>4104344
He wasn't Austrian.

>>4104302

I like Kafka, too. I like Robert Walser slightly better, but Kafka's good.

Listen, I don't hate all Jews. But I do despise the impact that Jewish culture's had on Western literature. Especially American literature since around the 1960s, when Jews wrested the top editorial positions from the WASP establishment. Things were made worse later, with the introduction of Identity Politics -- which, again, was headed by Jewish intellectuals.

>>4104327
Stefan Zweig. von Hoffmanstahl, by descent. Wittgenstein and Freud, who weren't novelists or anything, but still. A huge number of other less well known figures as well (Karl Kraus, Peter Altenberg, Egon Friedell, others).

>>4104357
>Jewish culture
What is that, exactly?

>Identity Politics
Identity politics is bullshit, but hardly intrinsically Jewish.

>>4104360
Wittgenstein wasn't really Jewish. His grandfather had converted, and Ludwig himself, while sometimes feeling Jewish, was religiously far more complicated and closer to Christian.

But yeah the Weimarkultur in general was full of Jews.

>>4100051
>rewrites can be good.

this is interesting to me. why aren't more books (especially fairly recent genre books) not re-written / updated / revised by their authors? This could be especially useful not just for ideological reasons here, but also in the case of sci-fi (when our understanding of science evolves) or fantasy (as the author updates his or her worldbuilding).

publishers should welcome this as well as readers. authors might bristle, but some would accept it.

>>4104344

Robert Walser was not Jewish.

Neither were Kleist and Gogol, whom Kafka held up as idols.

Kleist was the only author Kafka would read in public. This might be a shock, considering that Kleist was a rabid anti-Semite.

>>4104382
>This might be a shock, considering that Kleist was a rabid anti-Semite.
I don't see how that's a shock.

>>4104362

> Identity politics is bullshit, but hardly intrinsically Jewish.

Read up on the Frankfurt School and its connection to the identity politics movement. Almost all the founders and major players are Jewish.

>>4104360

Stefan Zweig was a sentimental hack; he was the Steven Spielberg of 1920s German literature.

>>4104392
Haha. That does not make it Jewish.

Please, go moan about cultural marxism among people who haven't actually read Marx or Horkheimer, it's just silly to do it here, you can't fool us.

>>4104382
honest question: why were so many good writers anti-semites? never knew that kleist was....

>>4104426
Because very many people in general were anti-semites.

Even clever people are easily dragged along with the prejudices of the day.

>>4104412

Do you deny the Jewish people have unique values and ideals? They're often very vocal about their traditions and culture. You don't think these values would be reflected in their work or affiliations?

>>4104438
>Do you deny the Jewish people have unique values and ideals?
Yes.

>>4104431
but why was the general public anti-semitic? i think this is my biggest problem: i can never get a straight on this (without being called an anti-semite for even asking). it just seems weird that both the smartest and the dullest men, top to bottom, would share a prejudice for no good reason....

>>4104451
There really isn't any singular reason. It is a long chain of events, beginning with Jewish resistance to Roman rule.

>>4104442

Welp, you obviously know nothing about Judaism.

>>4104456
Ha ha ha ha. Tell me, what are those 'unique values and ideals' all Jews have? Tell me how it ties together Haredi Judaism with the Frankfurt School and modern cultural degeneracy, things which have so much in common.

>he can't even answer

>>4104451
In the period before the 19th century, because they were a different religion, and specifically Jewish, as well as just for the general reasons that people are usually prejudiced.

In the period during and after the 19th century, because the Jews were a distinct ethnic group, which was significant in itself, and the one which, in Europe, lacked a homeland, and was spread across the continent, and was most closely associated with the political-economic order, with the state and with the emerging modern economy, so that anyone with a grievance against that order almost immediately became an anti-semite.

See Arendt in Origins of Totalitarianism.