/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2603105]

Is it Intellectually sound to hate Jews, considering the amount of intellectuals prior that shared such a hatred?

[Anonymous No.2603106]

No. Association fallacy.

[Anonymous No.2603111]

>>2603105
That's a terrible reason to hate Jews, which is pretty inexcusable, because there's a tonne of good ones.

[Anonymous No.2603115]

>>2603106

boop.

[Anonymous No.2603119]

Not because of that, but it might cause you to look into it.

In reality they're just a fairly unique ethnoreligious clique that has developed and evolved alongside the mainstream of Western Christendom, rather than with or into it. Thanks to this, and their drive to survive outside of gentile society, rulers and governments used them for various occupations that only made their professional associations and galvanization stronger.

Segue into the modern day and you have the phenomenon of Zionism. Israel is openly a war state that the US uses as a geopolitical salient in the Near East, and the ADL is openly pro-Zionist (pro-Israel, pro-Jewish), with no interest in free speech or gentile society, but tolerated by ruling elites. If from that point you want to ask yourself WHY they're tolerated, or look into the preponderance of Jewish stakes in American media, that's up to you. Just don't be too vocal about it or you'll get in trouble - something that might give you even more reason to look into it, since intense censorship like that which surrounds modern "antisemitism" doesn't occur naturally.

[Anonymous No.2603121]

>>2603105

Is it intellectually sound to believe the Earth is flat, considering the amount of intellectuals prior that shared such a belief?

[Anonymous No.2603128]

>>2603111
No, there are several reasons I hate Jews.

How they control our foreign policy and media, which, in effect, controls the minds of the public.

Regardless of what good a few Jews might bring, many of them are a potential threat to a country and it's people. You saw it with the Frankfurt school in Germany and know your seeing it again in many western countries.

Not to mention Jews are the root of such problems like mass immigration in European Countries, third generation feminism, white guilt and race mixing in the media, ect.

[Anonymous No.2603131]

>>2603105
I think it is intellectually sound to hate anything.

Or you would have to say that it is intellectually unsound to dislike the taste of peas.

[Anonymous No.2603133]

Jews ritualistically practice penis mutilation.

That's easily enough to warrant me hating their barbaric and tribalistic ways.

[Anonymous No.2603135]

>>2603119

Pro-Israeli sentiments in the policy making body should make you question the policy makers, not the groups they are pandering to. I agree the media barriers that confuse criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism are suspect to certain interests at play, but again there is no reason to lay the blame on certain groups and not the establishment as a whole.

[Anonymous No.2603141]

I find most of the features of both Judaism and Jewish ethnicity to be aesthetically displeasing. That's more than enough reason for me to dislike something.

[Anonymous No.2603143]

>>2603105
Fuckin' moron.

[Anonymous No.2603147]

>>2603131
>>2603141

>Emotive reasons for liking/disliking something.

Intellectually sound reasons.

[Anonymous No.2603146]

>>2603135
If the entirety of Jews were rid of, these problems would not co-exist in any first world nation. Even if not all of them are the problem, we need to prevent similar problems from occurring. If it means killing an entire group of people, so be it. It seems like the only way

[Anonymous No.2603149]

>>2603146

Oh boy have I got news for you.

[Anonymous No.2603155]

Bobby Fischer had an IQ of like 170 and hated Jews more so than Hitler.

Just saying.

[Anonymous No.2603159]

>>2603149
please, do share

[Anonymous No.2603158]

What's with all the right-wingers today? Is it /lit/ neocon-con today?

Let's talk about books

[Anonymous No.2603164]

>>2603147

Worked for Adorno (Theodr not the tripfag).

[Anonymous No.2603166]

>>2603158
everybody hates jews. Not just right-wingers.

Stop acting like a retard and blaming the problem on one giant fucking side. Go into politics or something you fuck and leave lit for good.

[Anonymous No.2603169]

>>2603166

>Go into politics or something you fuck and leave lit for good.

No, please, after you.

[Anonymous No.2603176]

>>2603147
There is no such thing as a reason that it is in itself intellectually sound. Reasons/motives aren't rational, since they come from irrational preferences.

There is no rational reason to prefer blue curtains over red ones. There is no rational reason to like or dislike the taste of peas. There is no rational reason to like or dislike jews.

Sure, you could come up with something rational like "blue is calming" or "jews are exploitive", but that would just leave you in a position to rationally account for your preference for calmness or lack of exploitation.

The only question that remains then is if a preference is incapable with otherwise posession the skill to intellectually sound or rational thought. This is no more the case for anti-Semitism than for disliking the taste of peas.

[Anonymous No.2603175]

Jonathan Safran Foer Thread?

Jonathan Safran Foer Thread.

[Anonymous No.2603181]

>>2603166

No, ignorant man-children who don't understand causality believe, as schizophrenics do, in conspiratorial bullshit because it's easy and it give you vindication. Give me some actual fucking evidence that any of the claims being made about jews are true and then I might start to take you seriously.

And no, not even most right-wingers hate Jews. Just the ones on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.2603182]

>>2603176

>This is no more the case for anti-Semitism than for disliking the taste of peas.

That is poor philosophy right there.

[Anonymous No.2603184]

>>2603135
True, but the contention is whether the top echelons of "Jewry" are conscious of their special status, enough to intentionally cultivate and abuse it. I think Finkelstein has shown that pretty well.

But yeah of course, nothing against Jews. It's retarded to hate a culture or religion. They're an interesting historical phenomenon, and in the modern day they are an instrument of American imperialism. I wouldn't advocate legitimate antisemitic racism now, nor in the Jewish ghettos of Renaissance Italy, nor in the ghettos of Hellenic/Roman Alexandria.

[Anonymous No.2603187]

>>2603181

gives* you

[Anonymous No.2603191]

>>2603182
Why? Except for the fact that people intuitively feel so because hating jews is more of a taboo than hating peas.

[Anonymous No.2603213]

There is no such thing as a reason that it is in itself intellectually sound. Reasons/motives aren't rational, since they come from irrational preferences.

>Reasons can be rational. They are weighed against motives and reasons countering your preference, even disposition at the time of decision. Intellectually sound reasons involve some leg work beyond your face-value requirements.

There is no rational reason to prefer blue curtains over red ones. There is no rational reason to like or dislike the taste of peas. There is no rational reason to like or dislike jews.

>Aesthetic reasons (colour preference) are extremely different from moral reasons (discriminating against another based on race or religion)

Sure, you could come up with something rational like "blue is calming" or "jews are exploitive",
but that would just leave you in a position to rationally account for your preference for calmness or lack of exploitation.

>Again, reasoned conclusions are very much beyond immediate emotive reactions to ideas. Confusing aesthetic justification with moral shows the flaw in your logic.

The only question that remains then is if a preference is incapable with otherwise posession the skill to intellectually sound or
rational thought. This is no more the case for anti-Semitism than for disliking the taste of peas.

>Bad philosophy

Premise 1:
I intuitively dislike Jews
Premise 2:
My intellectual reasons are solely intuitive
Conclusion:
Disliking Jews is intellectually sound.

[Anonymous No.2603237]

>>2603105
Did Krautchan's /int/ invade or something? We've got a fuckload of 'that feel' pictures circulating /lit/, a 'no girlfriend' thread on the front fucking page, and this shit.

[Anonymous No.2603239]

>>2603213
>Reasons can be rational. They are weighed against motives and reasons countering your preference, even disposition at the time of decision. Intellectually sound reasons involve some leg work beyond your face-value requirements.
The /reasoning/ may be sound, as in logically correct, but you still base everything of irrational preferences. It's nothing more than elaborate justification along certain rules. You can build great arguments around why you like cats more than dogs, but it still remains just as arbitrary as saying "lol i just like 'em". Preference can't be justified, therefore it can't be dismissed either.

>Aesthetic reasons (colour preference) are extremely different from moral reasons (discriminating against another based on race or religion)
Why would that be? They both come down to whimsical preference.

>Again, reasoned conclusions are very much beyond immediate emotive reactions to ideas. Confusing aesthetic justification with moral shows the flaw in your logic.
I'd say the burden of proof is yours, since you seem to discriminate between moral and aesthetic choices without giving any reason to do so. One could even say you just simply prefer that to be so but can't justify it.

>Premise 1:
>I intuitively dislike Jews
>Premise 2:
>My intellectual reasons are solely intuitive
>Conclusion:
>Disliking Jews is intellectually sound.

I said /all/ preferences are neither intellectually sound nor unsound. The question then is, is having preferences compatible with being an otherwise rationally capable being. The answer would be either yes, or that the whole of humanity is incapable of rational thought.

[Anonymous No.2603250]

>>2603239

can you claim irrational preferences as your own? would they not be the product of external values influences you?

If you believe that any and all reasons are derived from intuitive reactions, then we are not capable of rational thought. We are agents of dispositions and desire and nothing more.

If that is the case, then antisemitism is not intellectually sound for nothing could be.

[Anonymous No.2603264]

Are people trying to reason with this fucktard?
What the fuck for?

[Anonymous No.2603266]

>I'd say the burden of proof is yours, since you seem to discriminate between moral and aesthetic choices without giving any reason to do so. One could even say you just simply prefer that to be so but can't justify it.

Concluding I dislike the colour blue is very much preference... you could not rationalize it further.

Concluding that I dislike an entire ethno-religious group involves abstracting unknown persons into a generalization to which you discriminate. Unless you have anecdotal reasons for disliking Jews, then it would merely be preference based off of an experience you then generalized. Either way, you have rationalized it.

Where one is obviously immediate emotive reactions, the other is a more mediate justification based on either rationalizing hearsay, anecdotal experience or using both to abstract generalizations.

[Anonymous No.2603270]

>>2603250
I think that humans often show that they are capable of testing if certain things are possible within the rules of logic. This is what I would call rationality. It's a skill that's quite handy in a lot of cases.

The point is, this can, per definition, have nothing to do with values. There will never be a mathematical discovery that 2 is in fact preferable to 1.

So I believe that people are capable of utilising this tool, I just don't believe that it has anything to do with what they want or don't want/like or dislike.

If I then ask myself, would it be possible for one to utilise this tool and still dislike Jews, then I would say yes. The one has nothing to do with the other. One might just as well ask if someone who can build a treehouse would be allowed to find peaches delicious.

[sage No.2603278]

The interests of most jews conflict sharply with the interests of most western gentiles. There is a grand amount of reasons to hate jews ranging from the aesthetic to the political, but I do not believe you can believe something simply because some old, long deceased white men did. As someone else said in this thread, certain prior intellectuals believed the Earth was flat. Sage for non-/lit/

[Anonymous No.2603284]

>>2603266

Tasting one pea and claiming you dislike all peas is intellectual unsound.

[Anonymous No.2603291]

>>2603266
Blue is itself a generalisation of a wide spectrum of certain isolated features of visual experiences. Disliking blue is just as abstract as disliking jews. Both concepts name a certain group of phenomena.

I see what your point is and I understand, I just think it's made on faulty assumptions. Sure, one may arrive at a certain preference through a longer process of rationalisation than another preference, but one can never get to the core of why it is rationally sound to prefer one thing over the other. Therefore the elaborateness of the justification doesn't matter. The final destination of it is irrational anyway.

Why require rationalisations of irrational opinions? Why not throw that out the window and just like and dislike things without creating a smokescreen of excuses?

De gustibus non disputandum est
Omnia gustus est

[Anonymous No.2603294]

>>2603105
Yeah OP, blanket-prejudice against a people is cool and not racist or ignorant.
8/10

[Anonymous No.2603292]

Hate is never intellectually sound. Learn to grow beyond your base instincts and be the better man.

[Anonymous No.2603298]

>>2603292
>thinks some form of nobleness is more intellectually sound than baseness

On what grounds?

[Anonymous No.2603301]

>>2603121

You actually believe this.

> laughinggirls.jpeg

[Anonymous No.2603304]

LOL I JUST LITERALLY


PEED

MY

PANTS


JUST A LITTE THOUGH

I MEAN ITS A LITTLE SPOT NOT LIKE IT RUINED MY CHAIR R NYTHING LOL BUT FOR REAL EPIC LULZ *HIGH FIVES* XDDDDDDDDDDDDDD


U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD


WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD
U FRUSTRATED U FRUSTRATED BRO U SO MAD WHY ARE YOU SO MAAAAD I CAN POST ANYTHING I WANT THAT IS HOW IT SAYS IN THE RULES I DONT CARE ABOUT YOUR FAGGOTRY RULES Y SO MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD

WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH DDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD DDDDDD LOOOOOOOOOLLLLL THIS IS A SHIT hgXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD A BIG ONE XDDDDDDDD A GRAT ONE XXXXXXDDDD CONGRATS MAN XD

WHATA FUCK MAN xD i just fall of my chair kuz i couldnt and i CANT stop laugh

xDXDXDXDXDDDDDDDDDDDDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD OMGOSH


HOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLYYYYY SHIT

whatr the HELL

WHATA FUCK MAN xD

[Anonymous No.2603307]

>>2603158

Wow, I'm not an antisemite, but do you have any idea what a neocon is? Any at all?

> Hint, it's an ideology full of Jews.

[Anonymous No.2603312]

This whole thread is shockingly unintelligent.

[Anonymous No.2603313]

>>2603291

Dare I claim that there is a required value added when dealing with fellow rational beings?

My preferences cannot be the only justification when dealing with another equally capable of preference. There must be a higher judge of which preferences overrule others when in conflict. Though artificial, we do so.

I will grant you that if there is no argument beyond preference, then preference is all we are. But I do not see why a preference judged and weighed under varying dispositions cannot attain a higher status.

[Anonymous No.2603320]

>>2603307

You're actually right, and many neocons are shockingly pro-Israel. It's this weird niche of pseudo-libertarian Ron Paul-ites, the socially liberal right-wingers, that are carrying most of the torch for the jew-hating. Neo-con was a misnomer, my bad.

[Anonymous No.2603322]

>>2603320
>the socially liberal right-wingers

What in the actual fuck?

[Anonymous No.2603324]

>>2603312

I love when people bump a thread to complain about how shitty it is without contributing a single word to the conversation.

Just love it.

[Anonymous No.2603326]

>>2603322

He's right about that, but totally wrong about the libertarian part. Most neocons (like Dick Cheney— no joke) are pro–gay marriage and pro–abortion. They're basically big government social engineers who also like bombing the shit out of everyone.

Essentially, all of .gov is neocon.

[Anonymous No.2603330]

>>2603313
>But I do not see why a preference judged and weighed under varying dispositions cannot attain a higher status.

Sure, but the criteria on which those preferences would be judged would be just as arbitrary as any other preference. It would merely be conventional. I agree with you though, I prefer an intellectual climate where there is a hierarchy of justification. Not least because of my greater ability in fabricating justifications than most people with whom my will clashes on a regular basis.

And of course, it dismisses the opinion of this nigger:

>>2603312

Since he doesn't make a case for his opinion whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.2603335]

>>2603326

But the "the socially liberal right-wingers" (aka Red Tories, socially liberal/fiscally conservative) are pro-Israel . The anti-Israel/anti-Zionist can be across any political spectrum.

[Anonymous No.2603343]

>>2603330

Fair enough. But once you lead into conventional justification, albeit arbitrary, you're in a territory of morals - morals which dictate certain things about generalizing individuals and discriminating based on those generalizations.

[Anonymous No.2603341]

>>2603335

I wouldn't say they're pro-Israel, especially Paul's followers.

[Anonymous No.2603350]

>>2603312

I love when people bump a thread to complain about the staleness of discussion without contributing a single word to the conversation.

I just love it.

[Anonymous No.2603353]

>>2603341

They 'admire' a democracy (Israel) within an undemocratic region

[Anonymous No.2603358]

>>2603353

Perhaps, but they're far from Zionist. And most of them hate Jews

[Anonymous No.2603373]

>>2603358

still making an unsubstantiated claim that they 'hate all Jews'

[Anonymous No.2603383]

>>2603373

Not that they 'hate all jews', but that many of them have at least partially racist worldviews, mainly centered around blacks and jews. Again this is just anecdotal, I'm not trying to make any empirical claim.

[Anonymous No.2603391]

>>2603330
>>2603343

In addition:

>There must be a higher judge of which preferences overrule others when in conflict.
This is merely might, I'd say. In some cases it comes to violence, and it is physical might that overrules. In most cases in our society, it is might if the mind. I'd say that convincing someone with a sound justification is nothing more than tricking him into agreement and not more profound than outmanoeuvring someone in combat.

This is why I am so fond of the Sophists. In being pragmatic bastards they were actually more truthful than the idealists and moralists, who claimed the superiority of their preferences over others. The Sophists realised the arbitrariness and instead just focussed on arriving at their satisfaction.

I'd say morality is no more than "preferences regarding behaviour" with the distinct quality of getting people very engaged, angry or upset. It's just a category of preference which people take more seriously than other categories of preference (say taste of foods). Taking morality more serious than food is however still completely arbitrary. There is no rational reason to do so.

Still, the fact remains that people do mostly find it to be so. So we'll have to take that in consideration when trying to convince them to agree to our preferences. I actually find it quite convenient that people take morals so seriously, it makes for a /very/ powerful rhetoric instrument.

[Anonymous No.2603390]

>>2603383

let's generalize those who generalize

[Anonymous No.2603399]

>>2603390

You don't think what I'm saying is true?

[Anonymous No.2603419]

>>2603391

Very well put. I'll have to agree with you on many points there. I would only say that many have decided not to live as a sophist for mutual benefit (there is utility and pragmatism in accepting conventions), and as such accept certain arguments as more 'logical' than others.

I also agree that moral arguments are often no more than preference or emotivism, yet are held in such a higher regard to change the tone of discussion.

You cynics are always a handful.

[Anonymous No.2603426]

>>2603399

nope.

[Anonymous No.2603429]

>>2603426

fair enough.

[Anonymous No.2603436]

I'd rather not hate Jews, as it is so unfashionable and culturally unacceptable (besides, I love Jewish girls and their hairy cunts), but I'm finding it almost inevitable to harbor a mild dislike of them.

All the Jews I have met in real life have been disagreeable bitches and assholes from rich families that lord over other people. I studied some Jewish history in hopes I could overcome my prejudices, and though a part of me admired their tenacity in overcome obstacles, I was disgusted with their culture of victimization.

Jews are always the victim. Thanks to Hitler, they now have the ultimate Ace-in-the-sleeve. Oppose Israel? Oppose Zionism? Well, you're antisemitic Nazi scum.

Jews are the only thing I see people getting censored for bashing on the internet and in popular media. How many popular comedians do much material about Jews beyond 'hurr money'? Compare with the rich variety of snipes at blacks.

[Anonymous No.2603447]

>>2603436

lol if you really do think like this I feel sorry for you

[Anonymous No.2603448]

>>2603419
>I would only say that many have decided not to live as a sophist for mutual benefit (there is utility and pragmatism in accepting conventions), and as such accept certain arguments as more 'logical' than others.

Ha, yes. Often it is just as well or even better to just stick with the program. I'd even say it would be rare for a situation to come up where it is more beneficial to a person to be outright sophistic than it is to conform to conventional values.

I think it's all a rather beautiful game.

And with that I'm off to bed. Good day to you!

[Anonymous No.2603450]

>>2603447

this.

[Anonymous No.2603459]

>>2603447
Is that all you can say? I think it is.

[Anonymous No.2603464]

>>2603436
Exactly. The Guardian, while usually hilariously bad at covering foreign affairs, always gets called anti-Semetic whenever a journalist writes something that might question the supposed "unquestionability" of Israel.

I love tons of Jewish novelists, though not the Roth-esque ones where their identity shapes every single fucking word.

[Anonymous No.2603477]

>>2603450
>>2603447
jews

[Anonymous No.2603482]

hate them for hiram abiff

[Anonymous No.2603489]

>>2603477

Nope. White American of Northern European descent with my anus not around my neck.

[Anonymous No.2603496]

So does /lit/ not have mods?

[Anonymous No.2603508]

the jews

[Anonymous No.2603510]

>>2603496
we do, but he works in strange ways.

[Anonymous No.2603530]

>>2603496
This thread is pretty civil, your post really just forwards the idea of Jews having systematic impunity from all forms of cultural critique.

[Anonymous No.2603534]

>>2603530

civility aside, I agree with the op. Take it to /pol/