12

I understand why my answer could be generally disliked, as I accuse identitarian left that if one reused their own claims, just replacing "white", with "Jew", one would be considered as blatantly anti-Semitic. Nevertheless, I don't see how it could be "apologizing antisemitism", as my whole argument is based on the starting point that accusation against Jews are false, so I can use it as argument identitarian logic (regardless whether identitarian right or indetitarian left).

You may try apply conventional logic, but it's better to analyse the issue as social phenomena.

Logic

Whites are statistically more successful than US social average -> it proves white privilege. If observed in AD 2019 discrimination is clearly too weak to explain for difference in outcomes, then the explanation is historical oppression or some very well veiled and hard to track systemic racism or internalised racism.

American Jews are statistically more successful even than US whites -> it does not prove any privilege at all. Any person who dares to look for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil hidden agenda.

Another paradox: is it right to implement ethnic quotas for overachieving ethnic group on universities to help less advantageous? I would say that in '30s in my country (Poland) that was exactly the furthest reaching anti-Jewish policy that got implemented by my gov.

When think about it, those two identitarian position may seem a bit contradictory - the same difference in outcome can be both an evidence of blatant unfairness and pure coincidence. Same ethnic quotas limiting the most successful group can be both hallmarks of progresivism and signs of absolute bigotry. So let's look at it as social phenomena:

Social phenomena

Humans, are naturally tribal. If something undesirable is happening, then it must be fault of some other tribe. That's how it generally operates and group loyalty makes sense from evolutionary perspective.

Nevertheless, people should also express loyalty to tribal beliefs. Not just God, but tribal myths, stories... Just right now typical traditional religions are fading but an empty niche appears. During second half of XXth century (pinpointing it to 1968 would be an oversimplification) it become trendy in the Western Culture (but only the part under capitalism, former communist block seem not to be influenced) to express great how bad Western culture (capitalism, imperialism, etc) is. It simply become trendy to say in more secular version of: "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa".

That's a quite unique development. Suddenly condemning oneself become the proper thing to do, necessary to maintain social standing and show one wisdom in form of awareness for misdeeds of ancestors. It's mostly unique:

  • other cultures (including Eastern Europe) did not experience it
  • it's unique atonement and if any other culture have tried to join saying that they also have their own privilege it would spoil it

    There is internal dynamics in to those events. Some people are convinced that breaking such cycle of atonement could reawake demons that lead to WW1 and WW2. Quite many must not treat the thing too seriously, but consider it as good manners and sign of belonging to intellectual elite. Moreover, the guilt is not transferable on any other ethnic group. Additionally, regardless of their success, because of sad history Jews are being considered as protected group that should not be criticised by Westerners (when Arabs do it is generally considered as fine).

    To sum up: claiming of having unfair advantage over others, is a unique and recent feature of Western civilisation or at least of its elites. It's rather unsurprising that no other ethnic group want to adopt this mark with us.

As the mod Philipp advised on his profile:

I am always open for constructive criticism regarding my style of moderation. If you would like to discuss any decisions I make, please do so on https://politics.meta.stackexchange.com.

I ask about the issue on meta.

  • 7
    Wait. You think that "the furthest reaching anti-Jewish policy" implemented by Poland in the 1930s was university admission quotas? You're just going to make it seem like some sort of affirmative action program for non-Jews and gloss over the rest of this? – Zach Lipton Jul 16 at 4:07
  • @ZachLipton If you disagree with this part of my assessment please name, in those clearly barbaric times which other POLICY (not riots, but actual gov intervention) of Second Republic of Poland was more harmful for Jews? It was a rudimentary analysis in which I omitted ethnic riots in both compared countries or official, ideological explanation. I concentrated simply on what was gov intervention, when public opinion was clearly convinced that inequality of outcome must be a clear product of underlying injustice. – Shadow1024 Jul 16 at 5:39
  • @ZachLipton I fully agree that absolutely deplorable and crazy ideology led to ethnic quotas on Polish universities. Just the problem for me is that final outcome was roughly the same, ideology expressed by more radical Black activists weren't much different from stuff said by antisemitic ideologues, and the only significant difference was that official explanation in the US was much better sugarcoated. – Shadow1024 Jul 16 at 5:58
  • @ZachLipton I've seen videos on which US Black activists on universities were demanding safe space on which only people of colour would be present. Sorry, but I really was having a deja vu, just wanting to say "bench ghetto". – Shadow1024 Jul 16 at 6:03
  • 5
    So you're going to minimize antisemitism in Poland by ignoring most of it (on the basis that the anti-Jewish riots outside the universities apparently had nothing to do with the discrimination and segregation inside) and reduce a few hundred years of slavery and racism on the largest possible scale to "sugarcoating?" I think that covers some reasons to delete your answer. There's obviously a difference between a handful of cherry-picked examples of college students asking for a room for themselves and nationwide policies enforcing segregation. – Zach Lipton Jul 16 at 6:10
  • 1
    @ZachLipton I'm not going to minimise anything. There were ethnic quotas inside, and ethnic riots outside. In both cases. In the US case at least escape was possible, so it lead to white flight. – Shadow1024 Jul 16 at 6:25
10

The answer was deleted by a mod. For his reasons I have to refer to his answer. As that answer is a bit terse and only mentions one knock-out reason, it may be beneficial to analyse other potential reasons and evident problems with the post under discussion.

First of all, the answer is largely a private analysis, meaning without references for all the wide-reaching claims it makes. While in PoliticsSE I think everything falls under 'opinion-based' to certain degrees, as such without supporting references the answer falls a bit far into the outfield.

Even more problematic, it largely doesn't answer the question as I understand it. And tragically, the small part that does try to answer the very suboptimal question is at least worded like, perhaps influenced by, or worst a directly intended as such antisemitic statement. I do not diagnose motivation on this. But I do interpret and explain the content and effect as such.

Apart from that, many passages rely on rhetoric devices without convincing arguments. Others display an alarming amount of questionable a prioris.

You may try apply conventional logic, but it's better to analyse the issue as social phenomena.

Sounds good so far.

Logic

Whites are statistically more successful than US social average -> it proves white privilege. If observed in AD 2019 discrimination is clearly too weak to explain for difference in outcomes, then the explanation is historical oppression or some very well veiled and hard to track systemic racism or internalised racism.

That is your own thought experiment and the apodictic choice of words and alternative explanations seems to be designed to let a reader glance over the lack of references. Or more importantly, in a section starting with "logic", this paragraph doesn't show very much of it. It just looks like a non sequitur. Or is that an actual unreferenced observation?

That means: 'discrimination' is already alluded to as "clearly too weak" in 2019 (is it really, get a ref; 'is it' 'just assumed to be for the sake of this argument', say so more clearly – it very much sounds like the latter). The next part is now trying to get the wind out of the sails of potential detractors for this argument in paraphrasing possible alternative explanations, a few of them presented as the complete list, sounding as 'difficult', if not 'made up' or at least 'exaggerated'. No data, no evidence, no reference, no example. 'Just a thought' that is perhaps often heard somewhere, but unconvincing.

What's left unexplored is in the first place 'what is discrimination', or your understanding of it. What are in reality currently 'thought valid' explanations for different outcomes, and what are these? What does 'historical oppression' mean? That it's over, no longer applies? Or that it had effects that influence the structures of society and behaviour of individuals even now? It seems the latter is excluded firmly from possible interpretations of this passage.

American Jews are statistically more successful even than US whites -> it does not prove any privilege at all. Any person who dares to look for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil hidden agenda.

Word choice ("hidden explanation"!), 'target group' for this 'thought experiment' (or is this even intended as an actual observation?) falls under antisemtism. Not much debate here. But it is allowed to ask and reason: Is this the right question? Is it the case? What are the explanations? This can and is discussed in plain open conservation or debate. The allegation that there is something "hidden" about that is the primary reason that makes this an antisemitic statement. "Dare" is the second, as it alludes to unwanted consequences of doing just that and it firmly contradicts the superficial meaning of the preceding sentence: namely that there would be such a privilege only that the truth about it would be suppressed.

In that case it is actually a nice illustration for why the question is 'bad', as it is not established in either question or answer whether it's actually 'the case', or not, that there is any form of privilege. Or what exactly 'privilege' means in these cases. But at least this part demonstrates in coded form that 'you see, there obviously is a Jewish privilege, but we don't talk about it'.

That repeats and reinforces a skewed understanding on display in the question about the meaning of privilege, but doesn't explain neither the term used nor 'the phenomenon' (or why it wouldn't be one?.

In case it should be necessary: Saying an author wrote an antisemitic statement is not identical to calling an author an antisemite. But if such statements are repeated and start to form a pattern there is reason for concern.

In the answer it is also even used to show with 'logic' that the term "privilege" has no basis in reality? But we only have a chiastic juxtaposition of two different prejudices presented more as 'what-if's' than observation.

Namely that 'non-whites do in fact not face strong enough discrimination to explain suboptimal societal outcomes' and the claim that 'that Jews are perceived as being privileged and as a group exempt from deserved criticism'.

Another paradox: is it right to implement ethnic quotas for overachieving ethnic group on universities to help less advantageous? I would say that in '30s in my country (Poland) that was exactly the furthest reaching anti-Jewish policy that got implemented by my gov.

When think about it, those two identitarian position may seem a bit contradictory - the same difference in outcome can be both an evidence of blatant unfairness and pure coincidence. Same ethnic quotas limiting the most successful group can be both hallmarks of progresivism and signs of absolute bigotry. So let's look at it as social phenomena:

That is not answering the question but a general Chewbacca of whataboutism. The question was "There is Jewish privilege, why isn't it talked about", and the answer is apparently: 'the Jews in Poland where so privileged that the government only officially discriminated against them with university quotas and nobody ever talked about it?'

The difference in goals and intention should be readily apparent if a government argued to increase academic rates of group X or whether it wants to decrease rates for group Y. That can be discussed, but perhaps better in a post elsewhere, unless it is better explained how that should relate to the question asked.

Social phenomena

Humans, are naturally tribal. If something undesirable is happening, then it must be fault of some other tribe. That's how it generally operates and group loyalty makes sense from evolutionary perspective.

Biologistic explanations and naturalistic fallacies to explain a cultural, social and political problem? What was the headline yet for this section?

Nevertheless, people should also express loyalty to tribal beliefs. Not just God, but tribal myths, stories... Just right now typical traditional religions are fading but an empty niche appears. During second half of XXth century (pinpointing it to 1968 would be an oversimplification) it become trendy in the Western Culture (but only the part under capitalism, former communist block seem not to be influenced) to express great how bad Western culture (capitalism, imperialism, etc) is. It simply become trendy to say in more secular version of: "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa".

The argument now devolves from biologistic and essentialist explanation to biologistic and essentialist (or in this case also identitarian) prescriptive statements!That's how it should be?

That's a quite unique development. Suddenly condemning oneself become the proper thing to do, necessary to maintain social standing and show one wisdom in form of awareness for misdeeds of ancestors. It's mostly unique:

Who diagnosed the uniqueness? Looking into the intellectual history of the world's groups, peoples and even 'tribes' shows quite many examples to the contrary. That this is an often encountered statement, whether said for real or as an accusation, even baseless. Fun exercise: search for "self-hatred" and see what group your search-engine of choice presents most often to you. Hint: we probably would come back more on topic to the actual question on main about that.

other cultures (including Eastern Europe) did not experience it it's unique atonement and if any other culture have tried to join saying that they also have their own privilege it would spoil it

Full of allusions and again a reference for a bold statement is lacking. I would have at least one like this:

We have in Poland nowadays a very widespread phenomenon of the so called "self-hating" Poles (due to our tragic history which is rejected more and more ...
–– Comments on Poland's past: A difficult film | The Economist


There is internal dynamics in to those events. Some people are convinced that breaking such cycle of atonement could reawake demons that lead to WW1 and WW2. Quite many must not treat the thing too seriously, but consider it as good manners and sign of belonging to intellectual elite. Moreover, the guilt is not transferable on any other ethnic group. Additionally, regardless of their success, because of sad history Jews are being considered as protected group that should not be criticised by Westerners (when Arabs do it is generally considered as fine).

A really convoluted way of arguing that again devolves into whataboutism "with Arabs" at the end. Why should historic "guilt" play a role here when we talk about actual problems? Why should that guilt, if it exists, be "transferrable to other ethnic groups"? (Perhaps this "transferrable" is just a problem of language use I may overinterpret by this point. But it still is a problem of this post)

To sum up: claiming of having unfair advantage over others, is a unique and recent feature of Western civilisation or at least of its elites. It's rather unsurprising that no other ethnic group want to adopt this mark with us.

That is interesting psychologically. While not explicit it makes more than the other parts of the answer the connection of 'white privilege' being a 'white privilege' –– or in other words than the already used "unique" that again 'ingroup self-hate' would be a sign of weakness that now some 'whites' are victims of and one that the construct of 'Jews' doesn't share. 'Self-hating Jews' being declared non-existent is of course again strange and not answering why – as the question seems to imply – that it's apparently widely accepted that 'whites' and 'non-whites' use the term 'white privilege' as seemingly a fitting description for something while it seems strange or socially/politically unwanted for either 'Jews' or 'non-Jews' to speak of 'Jewish privilege'.


Right-wing populism across Europe and the United States takes different forms depending on nationally specific factors such as political history, system and culture, but there are similarities. Populism’s central and permanent narrative is the juxtaposition of a (corrupt) »political class,« »elite,« or »establishment,« and »the people,« as whose sole authentic voice the populist party bills itself.

Right-wing populism adds a second antagonism of »us versus them.« Based on a definition of the people as culturally homogenous, right-wing populists juxtapose its identity and common interests, with are considered to be based on common sense, with the identity and interests of »others,« usually minorities such as migrants, which are supposedly favored by the (corrupt) elites. Right-wing populists are not necessarily extremists, and extremists are not necessarily populists. The latter, however, is very likely, as extremism lends itself to populism. The more ethno-centric the conception of the people, the more xenophobic the positioning against »the other,« and the clearer the desire to overthrow the democratic system of governance, the more likely it is that a right-wing populist party is also extremist.

Right-wing populists also strategically and tactically use negativity in political communication. Supposed »political correctness« and dominant discourses are at the same time the declared enemies of right-wing populists and their greatest friends. They allow the staging of calculated provocations and scandals, and of the breaking of supposed taboos.

Tools range from the calculated break of supposed taboos and disrespect of formal and informal rules (e.g., »political correctness«) to emotional appeals and personal insults. Conspiracy theories and biologist or violent metaphors have a place.
–– Thomas Greven: "The Rise of Right-wing Populism in Europe and the United States A Comparative Perspective", 2016. (PDF)

Also A reflection on the far-right ideology of the past and now


The question that attracted this answer was indeed substandard. As SE-model theory goes it attracted bad answers. As PolSE has quite a few 'bad' questions, I really like to read those 'bad' question if they generate a very good answer, most likely in the form of a serious frame-challenge. That is not per se impossible.

This answer under discussion falls short of being a moderately good answer. Since most parts of it were tangential to the question and the one part most close to addressing the actual question a Code of Conduct violation, it looms quite difficult to resurrect a form of the answer or any answer with the intentions expressed so far that would be worth undeletion. Sometimes it's better to start afresh.

  • 3
    Wow, long answer. Didn't make it all the way through myself (just an observer here), but I appreciate the very neutral tone. Good job with that. – Cullub Jul 19 at 18:54
7

I deleted the answer mostly for this paragraph:

American Jews are statistically more successful even than US whites -> it does not prove any privilege at all. Any person who dares to look for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil hidden agenda.

Making the claim that Jews have some special protection from criticism which goes beyond the common decency of not discriminating against people for their religious beliefs or ethnicity is a common dog whistle among antisemites to normalize antisemitism.

  • 4
    I did not claim in that point they have special protection. I just pointed out, that the same logic that's perfectly fine in proving alleged "White-priviledge", would be a violation of taboo if applied towards Jews. – Shadow1024 Jul 14 at 10:31
  • 3
    Are trying to say how outrageously crazy would be a claim that Jew "have some special protection from criticism", by removing an argument that if read against my intention of pointing identitarian left double standards, could be by great stretch interpreted as mild criticism of Jews? I see here some deep layers of irony. – Shadow1024 Jul 14 at 10:40
  • 9
    Nothing ironic about that. Jews deserve the same protection from discrimination just like all other minorities deserve. There is no double standard here. The narrative that "identitarians" (another dogwhistle term, by the way) would give Jews more protection than they deserve because "the jews can take it because they are successful" is what leads to pogroms. – Philipp Jul 14 at 10:50
  • 1
    The answer by Joe might give you more insight into what's the deal with those you call "identitarians" and why the things you write are perceived as antisemitic. – Philipp Jul 14 at 10:55
  • 4
    OK, so effectively are you claiming there is a grand global conspiracy of antisemites, who use top secret (but known to you) key phrases to spread their sinister messages to their fellow plotters? And by using already two of them I must have outed myself? (Idea that for example you live in an echo chamber and when faced with cognitive dissonance your defence mechanism is accusing the intruder of all possible evils would be something that sinister conspirator would tell) – Shadow1024 Jul 14 at 11:15
  • 11
    Antisemitism is real, and there is nothing secret about it. – Philipp Jul 14 at 11:35
  • 5
    Another fun fact. The term "Left-Identitarian" was actually one of suggested on this forum, as proper, neutral term for such school of thought. Have you considered possibility that your dog-whistle hunting skill, is merely a method used to preemptively discredit all potentially causing cognitive dissonance information sources? Nothing more than a sophisticated version of Trump's "FAKE NEWS!" battle cry when hearing anything undesired? politics.stackexchange.com/questions/42741/… – Shadow1024 Jul 14 at 11:53
  • 8
    What tipped you off that he was singling out Jews as receiving "special protection"? The alternative interpretation being that he was making a broad argument that any successful minority group that sometimes faces discrimination is shielded from accusations of privilege; and that the uses Jews as an example, only because that was the specific context of the question. – lazarusL Jul 15 at 15:27
  • 2
    Would a more elaborate reasoning than "mostly" be approriate, as there are clearly other problems, like naturalistic fallacy, essentialist, identitarian and biologistic reasoning, even prescriptivism, unreferenced claims of wide reach…? – LangLangC Jul 16 at 14:37
  • 2
    @LangLangC If you see more problems with the answer we are discussing here, then you might want to post your own answer to this meta-question. – Philipp Jul 16 at 14:40
  • 1
    This answer seems correct, but lacks emphasis about how the particular wording is needlessly challenging, i.e. the verb "dares", (instead of "tries"), the description "hidden evil agenda", (instead of say "ulterior motives"), "Any one who", (instead of "some critics"), etc. – agc Jul 18 at 15:05
  • 7
    Well deleting the whole answer just seems like Jews have some special protection from criticism then. Criticism does not equal discrimination. Why not edit the answer instead of delete the whole thing, for one sentence? – Chloe Jul 19 at 21:31
  • @Philipp Given your answer I can't see how you would have a problem with his post if the line "Any person who dares to look for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil hidden agenda." were deleted, unless you aren't being entirely forthright in your motivations. Seeing that moderators are able to edit posts... well... it does undermine the verisimilitude of your statement somewhat. – Stumbler Jul 27 at 10:00
  • Edits that drastically change the author's intent are not to be approved, and a moderator is well aware of that. Since the sentence is apparently intended or pertinent to the overall intent, deleting it would be directed against policy. – Nij Aug 7 at 5:27
-3

I just want to add that the answer makes a lot of sense. I wonder why everyone is so hostile to this. I am not even American or jews or white. I am chinese. So I am very neutral here.

Whites are statistically more successful than US social average -> it proves white privilege. If observed in AD 2019 discrimination is clearly too weak to explain for difference in outcomes, then the explanation is historical oppression or some very well veiled and hard to track systemic racism or internalised racism.

American Jews are statistically more successful even than US whites -> it does not prove any privilege at all. Any person who dares to look for any hidden explanation is a conspiracy theorist and has an evil hidden agenda

To me, the answers make perfect sense. Neither whites are jews are necessarily privileged. They may just be smarter and more dilligent.

What the answerers want to say is that because you cannot imply jewish privileges from you also cannot imply white privilege simply from whites' success.

Whites used to be privileged. Not anymore.

It makes perfect sense.

So if you want to imply white privileges you need other evidence. Minimum wage, for example, is a form of white privilege because it allows employers to favor whites according to Milton Friedman. Affirmative actions to white women are white privileges though less than others.

However, the fact that white men earn more than others may simply result from their higher average IQ. Similarly, Jewish higher success may come from their even higher average IQ. There is no unfair privilege here.

Higher IQ individuals tend to be richer and have more potential to be rich.

http://www.iqscorner.com/2007/05/temp.html

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .