The vile hypocrisy of Facebook on “hate speech”: Muslims get a pass, Jews and Israel don’t

100 thoughts on “The vile hypocrisy of Facebook on “hate speech”: Muslims get a pass, Jews and Israel don’t”

1. Wow. But then I’m not surprised by FB.

2. Turns out that FB is showing the “Horror Show Called Isreal” knife-thrower graphic instead of the kitten.

   1. sub

   2. Yeah, I guess they just pick out one at random. It would be ironic if we were banned on Facebook because some Jewish person or Israeli objected to that graphic!

      1. But then that could bring some NPR-worthy attention to the issue. Fingers crossed!

         1. Jews don’t generally get as worked up about this stuff as Muslims, though.

            1. Somehow I think it is the shame-based rather than guilt-based ethos, and as if to prove my point I now feel bad for over-generalizing.

            2. Somehow I think it is a function of the shame-based rather than guilt-based etfhos, and as if to prove my point I now feel bad for over-generalizing.

            3. WordPress iPhone app! I was wondering how people did double-posts. Good to know.

3. It’s almost as if Facebook is afraid of what might happen if they were seen as permitting anti-Islam sentiments. I wonder why that would be … Thinking ….

4. …and people wonder why I’m still not on TwitBookSpace….

   b&

   1. Yeah, I’m with you Ben. I only got onto FB to keep in touch with my cousins in Europe. It does have some benefits.

      I ignore all “packaging” postings (people reposting some canned crap from somewhere — especially “inspirational” sayings and the like).

      I only look at people’s original content (or in rare cases, certain news items.)

      That eliminates 90% of the FB content.

      I spend about 5 minutes on it per day. Just like checking email.

      1. Like

      2. Ditto. Lots of crap, but at least I can see if my brother gets a new job or something (we don’t talk that much otherwise). And among more distant family, I learn about deaths, divorces, and all of the other family news that it is embarrassing to be ignorant of when you are together for some holiday (Mable has been dead for six months, so stop anticipating her Apple pies, and John divorced Mary so maybe lay off on singing her praises…).

5. I’m guessing that Facebook doesn’t really care and only acts when someone complains. Someone complained about the Muslim photo so they took it down, but no one complained about the antisemitic photos, which are indeed awful. I may be wrong, but that’s my guess.

   1. I think you are correct. I posted the “Muslims who get offended…kill people” poster on my FB wall yesterday and nothing happened and that’s likely to be because none of my FB “friends” complained. Obviously I have a much lower profile and far fewer friends than GSHM and my page is hidden from all but my “friends” so there aren’t that many who see my posts and most of those who do see them ignore them.

      1. My hunch could be confirmed by a few people complaining to Facebook about one of the more egregious antisemitic posts and seeing what Facebook does. Like Jerry, I don’t think Facebook should censor anything, no matter how vile. This is in the nature of an experiment.

         1. An exageration Or do you really mean anything, no matter how vile? I would love to know where Jerry draws the line. And yes, if you say literally anything I’m going to ask if you think videos of non-consensual pedophilia is ok, as well as postings of police/military plans prior to execution or real-time coverage of covert ops, etc.

            1. You should read Jerry’s post. He says where he draws the line.

            2. I guess I’m missing where he draws the linerror in the post but perhaps I’m being a pedant. I see what he’s an advocate of but not what he’s an opponent of. He certainly didn’t say in the past he thinks anything no matter how vile should be allowed (Which would almost certainly include things inciting immediate violence).
               “I’m an advocate of any free speech that doesn’t incite immediate violence.”

            3. How is “at violence” not a line?

            4. So exposure of illegally obtained private informant is all good, as long as nobody does anything drastic right away. Somehow, I think his stance is a bit broader than “immediate violence.” Perhaps a future post on what should be censored.

            5. If someone posts something clearly illegal, like nonconsensual pedophilia, it’s the responsibility of the government to take action. Facebook and other social media have the right to censor whatever they like, but I wish they wouldn’t.

            6. Off topic, but you realize that “nonconsensual pedophilia” is redundant since minors are incapable of legally giving consent, right?

            7. I didn’t coin the phrase. The person I’m replying to did. I agree that it’s an inept construction, designed, I think, to evoke an visceral response.

            8. And of course, the core of the issue is sexually exploiting children as opposed to the speech tied to it. There are specific victims involved (even if we can’t necessarily track them down). Free speech is based on the premise that there is no sacred right not to be offended, so pedophilia pictures should not be censored based on offense, rather that they continue violating the human rights of the children.

            9. Yes, literally anything.

               If the police are so incompetent that they let their assault plans get out, there’s no better way to perpetuate their incompetence than by blaming and persecuting the ones who uncovered it. Remember, the problem isn’t that the police know that the “perps” know that they’re coming; it’s that the police let the news get out in the first place. And there’s no better way to solve that sort of problem at its source than by holding the police accountable for their own incompetence.

               The child pornography example, of course, creates a much greater unthinking, visceral response — which is, no doubt, why you went straight for it. But even that needs to remain free.

               You see, it’s the black market that creates the financial incentives for people to create the industry that exploits children. If the pictures are legal, there’s no more black market, and the money evaporates. It won’t stop the problem, of course; nothing ever will, any more than anything will put an end to any other crime. But it will remove those who’re in it in some significant way for the money.

               The crimes the pictures document, of course, need to remain illegal — and, in many cases, the pictures are the best evidence the police have that a crime happened, let alone give any clues as to what and how. But, once the crime has been committed and the evidence scattered to the winds, any remaining justification (“the victim will suffer continuing psychological harm as people a continent away look at the photos”) is at most nebulous and doesn’t come anywhere near the degree of harm that the black market itself causes.

               We already had all the laws we needed to combat child pornography. The acts they document are rape and the photographers (if not “selfies”) are accomplices. Gutting the First Amendment “in the name of the children” only makes an horrific situation that much worse for so many others.

               …and that’s long before we get to the “slippery slope” arguments, such as Nabokov’s Lolita, imagined paintings of underage children, and snapshots of grandma in the tub with the kids at bathtime.

               b&

            10. Well said, I’m fairly well convinced and thanks for some great examples. This would of course mean even allowing things that “incite immediate violence,” as as the good doctor worded it (not your argument). I’m a bit lost on whether that includes Islamic satyr in some cases but I’m probably missing the context of “incite.” Maybe referring to something like inciting a riot.

            11. Incitement to riot has rightly been understood as action, not speech. That’s where I draw the line. I don’t know where Jerry draws the line, but I’m certain incitement to riot is on the verboten side of the line for him, too.

                b&

      2. That sounds like you have MY friends. 😉

6. There is not much more that I can add, except that I totally agree with you.

   1. Ditto. x

   2. Thirded.

7. Quality of Life in Israel vs. life in any Muslim country.
   Number of Jewish Nobel prize winners vs Muslim Nobel winners.
   Number of Jewish/ Israeli terrorist attacks.
   Hell cut the the chase. Any indicators of ” the good life” and Islam falls short. Way short. ( and not that it matters but Syrian/German atheist SHARP Skinhead here.

   1. Student, what are you saying? Sorry if it’s just my lack of reading comprehension, but I am not getting what you are trying to convey.

      1. 1. Champion those whose efforts advance humanity.
         2. I don’t have a personal agenda.
         Thanks for asking!

         1. “2. I don’t have a personal agenda.”

            And yet you’re a SHARP.

            “I don’t like what you say, you fascist pig, so I’m going to silence you any way I can!”

            Think about it for a while…

            (Mind you, I strongly embrace the anti-racist cause, but SHARPs, Trojans and affiliated are doing it the wrong way.)

            1. American, not uk. Often simply stood between violent skins, their intended victims and yes took a swing when it was the right thing to do.

            2. And truthfully I predate sharps. In ny LES it was true blue skins.

8. I guess it doesn’t count as hate speech if the post or group name has the word “hate” in it. That’s just hating, and haters gonna hate.

   And the point of the “real nazism” cartoon is that Israel forces Palestinians to wear the keffiyeh so they can be identified, like the Nazis did with Jews and the yellow Magen David patch? The latter not having been “real” nazism?

   I suck at reading racist cartoons I guess.

9. With Mark Zuckerberg being raised as a Jew, you would think Facebook would be a little more sensitive to anti-Semitism. But Facebook has appalling standards all round. Graphic violence is permitted while breast-feeding is censored.

   1. JAC has identified the reason quite accurately:
      “This, of course, is characteristic of the double standard that unfortunately permeates much of the Western Left these days.”
      (It’s part of a larger pathology, seeing everyone as part of a “hierarchy of victims” IMO, but I’m not here to hijack the thread.)

   2. Perhaps MZ is over correcting?

      My breastfeeding post is still up. (As is my unicorn.)

      /@

   3. “Graphic violence is permitted while breast-feeding is censored”

      This is just Facebook reflecting American culture. Nudity, in American culture, is more taboo than shocking violence. Because children. Or something.

10. I think this is disgusting. I suspect your site has been targeted. I don’t know how Facebook works, because I’m not a member, but this happens on Twi**er too. Basically a group decides to get a user suspended and all complain about that person at once, which triggers an algorithm suspending the user. Getting unsuspended often appears to be a matter of an apology triggering an algorithm too. I’ve never been targeted, but quite a few atheists are.

    Also, I’m pretty sure I’ve posted that same meme on Twi**er about two years ago with no consequences. It all depends on whether someone complains. Some groups are, as a rule, more easily offended.

    None of that helps of course, or makes what’s happened to you any less wrong.

    1. “Getting unsuspended often appears to be a matter of an apology triggering an algorithm too.”

       I wonder if a non-apology such as, “I’m sorry you got upset” would trigger that algorithm.

       1. Many of you probably know the trials of Godless Spellchecker recently getting banned from Twi**er and like me RT’d stuff that eventually got the powers that be to back down. All his initial communications seemed to be with a computer and not a real person.

11. I’ve never seen such a blatantly two-faced, reprehensible instantiation of this double standard as we see on Facebook.

    Yep its pretty dire. Not sure we can claim it’s because FB’s overlords have drunk the liberal ‘colonialist-self-flagellation’ tea, however. IMO, FB’s overlords are instead all about money. Western liberal types tend not to pull their business due to other people’s free speech, while more conservative groups and people do, so the net effect is the same as if they are accommodationist sympathizers. But its a nuanced difference in motivation.

    Why does that matter? Because if we ultimately want to change FB’s policy, that difference in motivation means a different strategy needs to be used to do it. If they are ‘true’ far-left types, then yes pointing out their hypocrisy and double standard may work. But if I’m right and they’re just mercenary capitalists, it won’t because they won’t care. In that case we have to make some sort of ‘hit your bottom line’ argument instead.

12. Of course, FB changes all the time. But I thought you used to be able to click on a post and signal it as “inappropriate”.Yes, I found it. Click on the little upside-down carrot on the URH side of the pick and select “I don’t like this post”. You can then say why and tell FB that it violates their standards. If everybody does that…

    1. Just got a reply from FB. They claim the pic does not violate their community standards! ‘Nuf said.

       1. Which of the pictures did you report to Facebook and got that reply for your complaint? I guess you mean one of the ones our host gives as examples above.

          1. Yes, the first one, where Netanyahu is “missile-feeding” a baby.

             1. Try another one. That one strikes me as the least offensive of them. Unless I am missing something about that cartoon it seems almost a straightforward political commentary that, far from nurturing Palestine, Israel is killing it. The “Last Encounter” and “Who is in control” cartoons are far more offensive since they seem to condone violence/genocide and ugly racial stereotypes unconnected from mere politics.

13. The left should be the humanistic movement of the world. Instead, it keeps itself up with antisemitic slave-morale.

    There is still a whole bunch of reasonable lefties, tho, and I still hope they will change the general direction of the movement But probably we will just split up once again, lol.

    Greetings from Germany, i really do appreciate your blog.

14. Isn’t “cute kitten” redundantly redundant? But seriously, while I’m not pleased with all of israel’s policies, I don’t understand why it’s publicly ok to hate them and wish they were dead. I find it disconcerting that anyone can be apathetic toward or even supportive of a group like Hamas who’s stated purpose is genocide.

15. One could argue that many of the memes you posted seemed to be directing their criticism toward Israel, Not Jews per se.

    1. Yes, one could argue that, but then one would have a. missed the anti-Semitic memes and b. have missed the several parts of my post (as well as the Facebook standards themselves) that consider criticism of members of any nationality as “hate speech”. Criticism of Israel and the US are of course prohibited by Facebook under their rules. While I think some (or even a substantial portion) of anti-Israel criticism reflects anti-Semitism, one needn’t make that argument to say that those sites and pictures violate their standards.

       Did you even read my post?

       1. Well, you claimed that “Those cartoons promote hatred of both a nationality (Israel, USA, India) and of a religious group (Jews)” – not the hate sites reposting them, but the cartoons, which I think is false for the last one you’re showing, and arguably the first (you’d have to convince me that it is an anti-Semitic caricature of Netanyahu, instead of just one of the person Netanyahu).

          Your point on double standards, of course, still stands.

          1. Your point on double standards, of course, still stands

             Well and that is the key point, isn’t it? As Jerry said, he’s not advocating more censorship, just pointing out the contradiction in Facebook’s treatment of various opinions.

             If the original artist’s intent was less offensive than it appears re-contextualized on a hate page, fine. If the characterization of each individual piece doesn’t fit *all* of the criteria in Jerry’s blanket description, fine. Jerry puts out a LOT of FREE food for thought day after day, and I’m amazed (no, literally!) his writing is as precise and accurate as it is – which is very. I’m content with the overall point; I feel like wrestling with smaller details implies he needs to spend more time fussing and editing and I’m pretty sure he’s speding enough time as it is.

             Still, the Netanyahu caricature does happen to be consistent with anti-Semitic propaganda going back centuries, rehashing the bloodthirsty, baby-killing trope. Having said that, and to your point, one might see that same image in any era, with any military figure and an enemy nation’s baby: MacNamara and a Vietnamese child (conceivably drawn by an American no less!), for example, or Hitler/Mussolini/Hirohito “feeding” a bomb to an American baby.

             If a political image of a public figure is not necessarily hate speech, fair enough, but its context on the “I DO hate ISRAEL” page certainly injects a broader meaning than it might, say, in The Village Voice or on a site called “I Do Hate Netanyahu.” It’s all hatey hate hate and clearly directed at a nation and its people, not just at one execrable man.

             The last image I might quibble with you – notice that men in the applauding audience are wearing kipot, a religious symbol, and the use of knives generally – and against innocent ladies especially – is a major anti-Semitic trope, and a go-to for Der Stürmer and so many other organs. The fact that the imagery is a staple in propaganda, like the Netanyahu piece, doesn’t change the fact that it is also part of a specific tradition.

             And aren’t we all supposed to be sensitive to that kind of connection? I know I am and strive to be! If the artists really don’t know the fullness of the tradition behind their chosen imagery, they really should read up. I can’t imagine we’d expect Facebook to turn a blind eye to a reported image that “coincidentally” used Jim Crow imagery on a wingnut hate page supporting police who shoot unarmed teens. And Facebook took it down or not, that’s the kind of thing that gets attention – as it should. And so should these anti-Israel and anti-Jew hate sites.

16. Ibrahim Hooper and Reza Aslan sure are great at their jobs, aren’t they?
    It’s a disgraceful double standard, one that sadly is being applied to all discourse addressing any facet of the Israel/Palestine conflict.
    To some prejudice and double-standards are perfectly acceptable as long as you can rationalize those whom you are prejudging as unsympathetic.
    BTW, there is a lot to be said for discourse couched in photographs of adorable kittens.

17. Even though I supported Israel’s defense against the rockets from Gaza, I still had to laugh about the last cartoon (“The Horror Show”). I think that one is more political than the others. Netanyahu does seem a bit reckless sometimes. 2000+ Palestinian civilians were killed this summer.

    On the other hand, Hamas should have build shelters for civilians instead of tunnels for militants.

    The other posts on that facebook page are simply disgusting.

18. “It’s a Star of David being blown away by a Palestinian hand shaped like a gun:”

    -That’s clearly an Iranian hand.

19. I am going to adopt the practice of starting every electronic correspondence with a cute kitten!

    1. I might try the “spoonful of sugar” approach with my wife, but then every time I were to send her a kitteh picture she’d be all “What did you do now …. ?!”

    2. I really liked it. Started me off in a calm mood, then restored my calm at the end.

20. I have use the report on some pretty noxious stuff – far-right/nazi ‘Britain first’ etc. and a page advocating animal killing, but none got removed.

    So I don’t understand the fb admins!

21. Honestly, I think a part of it is just because less Jews and Christians and everyone else complain about comics or comments about them. But overall, your point still stands.

22. OK I see 2 that are banworthy based on FB’s standards. The one using the German word for Jew, and the other talking about burning zionists one by one. The rest are directed at nations not individuals. America not Americans, Israel not Israelis.

    Now I hate to be labeled an apologist for anti-semitism for simply suggesting there could be something else going on in this instance, particularly because I agree there is a double standard generally. But first of all maybe no one has complained about those two cases, or it’s not a meme that’s been added to FB’s image recognition software. Maybe the German word for Jew isn’t recognized, or Zionist recognized. I’m afraid I’m not convinced this is a slam dunk.

    I don’t do FB, but has anyone looked for any “hate” posts directed at Iran, Afghanistan, or North Korea? Which I would be see as more comparable to most of the above examples.

    1. Please….have you not been paying attention?

       1. I assume you have a point. I just wish you’d made it.

          1. I think Randy refers to the point that was earlier made by professor Coyne, which is that criticism of a nationality is also banworthy under Facebook rules. But it’s obviously a grey area, because it’s a bit weird to advocate the death of a state, but not the death of its citizens.

             1. Randy can also see a lot of we hate Jews in the above examples. Other than that…I have no point to make.

             2. It’s also a distinction without a difference. The islamists who post these vile images hate JEWS: Israel and Zionism are just fig-leaves to give their anti-Semitism enough of a threadbare covering to keep their leftist fellow-travellers on side.

             3. It’s also a distinction without a difference. The islamists who post these vile images hate JEWS

                That’s only true if you assume the motivations of the poster which FB presumably doesn’t do. If a number of these had been posted a liberal Jewish American supporter of Palestine would you make the same assumption.

             4. I suspected that, but I see a significant difference between saying something like “Death to America”, and “Death to Americans”, and the FB policy talks about “others” which I take to mean people.
                One is calling for the end of a state, the other the end of it’s people, but yes I agree it’s a gray area, and that’s why I said I don’t think it’s a slam dunk case of hypocrisy.

23. My understanding is that the security folks prefer certain sites (and I assume FB pages) to stay open, so they can keep an eye on certain people.

24. That’s just utterly bizarre. A harmless photograph with a caption: not OK, but horrible images vilifying the Jews, all OK.

    One thing the Australian government got right lately (and it’s rare that the current government gets anything right since they’re all Right) was to declare support for Israel and not join the rabid anti-Jew sentiment which seems to be rampant in the UK and Europe at the moment. I still can’t believe that the EU removed Hamas from the list of terrorist organizations and is now blaming all the problems of Palestine on the Jews.

25. The view that should be active here is this. Who would want to use a format, face book or any other that produces this kind of bias in censorship. The question for the rich kid over there at FB is grow up or get off.

    I do not use face book or twitter so easier for me to say. Find someplace else to grind it out or do a site such as this one. Most of the ideas over there are childish and self- aggrandizement. But that is just an older generation talking.

26. Some of those are anti-Semitic, some of them are anti-Israel, some of them are anti-Israeli government policy. And these are all different things, though it’s true that some of the examples seem to partake of more than one category. All of the first two categories are vile (and some of the second category seem to be advocating genocide), but a few of the third category are merely in questionable taste. In my opinion.

    Should anyone demand their removal? And it does seem that before concluding this to be bias on the part of Facebook, more data are needed. Is Facebook’s policy have any sort of predictability? Is it driven by Facebook or by the distribution of complaints? So far, we don’t know.

    1. You could personally go to Facebook and report the posts you find offensive. If no one reports a post, I doubt it gets on Facebook’s radar.

    2. These people are, again, co-opting left-wing liberalese to protect them, in this case from accusations of anti-semitism. They very skilfully elide the state of Israel with Jews and couch their loathing of Jews in the language of the politically engaged underdog. Not only does this make it difficult to prove their anti-semitism it makes it equally difficult to recognise genuine Muslim political opposition to Israel when it does appear. Personally, I find it increasingly difficult to take what Muslim voices say about Israel at face value. When even the organiser of a ‘ring of peace’ against anti-semitism turns out to have spoken of his hatred of Jews just 6 or 7 years ago who can you engage with honestly? Certainly the left have either massively underestimated, or simply ignored, the extent of anti-semitism in the Muslim world, and these racists rely on that.

       1. I got another education on this last night.

          Reading the news about the sniper trial led me to read about a friend of his who was the sole survivor of a raid in Afganistan gone bad (there is a book and movie, of course). Apparently a local Afghani took him into his home and protected him from further harm. Now *that* guy is getting threats from the Taliban. (http://nydn.us/1DWNSUK). One of the threats was publicly posted and read:

          “You are informed that your Jewish colleagues and Americans friends are gone now, so who will save you and what will you do?” the letter said. “I ordered my commanders and the Taliban Mujahedeens to kill or arrest you alive and bring you to me. Then I will know how your Jewish friends cannot save or protect you.”

          I thought, “Really? You’re 2000 miles away from Israel and you’re angry at this guy for saving the life of a man from Texas, but it’s Jews you invoke? Really?”

          Clearly there is a strain of anti-semitism here that has nothing to do with Israel.

          1. That’s pretty mental but absolutely par for the course as far as I can tell. The jokes in Borat – The Movie about middle-eastern anti-Semitism seem less and less ridiculous the more I learn about the reality.

             1. Borat is fantastic.

             2. Sacha Baron Cohen is, regardless of religious affiliations, a living god.

                Borat, Bruno, Dictator, Ali G, King Julian… name any, and it’s still comedy gold.

                (Yes, I also love Ricky Gervais, Eddie Izzard and George Carlin, not to mention Bill Hicks [am I allowed to say that here?])

             3. I am not as familiar with Hicks and Izzard, but I’ve seen nearly all of Carlin’s stuff and a lot of Gervais. They are fantastic. Carlin stopped sugarcoating his religious criticisms in his later years, not that they were ever exactly tame.

27. I like Facebook a lot. It allows me to keep in touch with many friends scattered all over the world. I participate in several photo sharing groups, and every day I see jaw-dropping wildlife and landscape photos. I often see HILARIOUS (sorry, LouisCK) and thought-provoking posts, most of them of a politically progressive nature (probably due to the FB “friends” I have). Sure, there’s a lot of bullshit on it, and I’m not happy about what they’ve done in this case, but on balance I like it.

28. I am not a big fan of the State of Israel. I would have an issue with any state that defines itself strictly on ethnic/religious grounds. My biggest problem with the policies of Israel is that I think that in the long run they are dangerous for the future of Israel.

    But then you keep seeing this anti-semitic crap and think that maybe Israel does not have a choice.

29. From “The Future of Identity” by Nick Bostrom & Anders Sandberg:

    Owners [of social networks] are free to regulate social spaces in numerous ways, controlling both what value is created, and freedom of expression and identity14. Overt exclusion of certain people or groups (either by moderators removing them or by disallowing them from signing up) is a crude way. There are many more subtle ways the space can be influenced: controls over the kind of content that can be posted, how identities can be expressed or what information can be linked to what other information. For example, some social spaces for kids have attempted to prevent bullying or sexually explicit messages by forcing communication through a limited pre-set vocabulary. Many online games prevent avatars and usernames seen as unsuitable or copyright infringing. The threat that discussion threads, uploaded material, groups or users can be deleted if they are seen as unsuitable also acts an implicit enforcement of what is perceived to be the unstated rules of the owners. This can limit free expression to ‘safe’ topics without any formal (or legally challengeable) regulation, just the chilling effects of knowing that one’s online identity can be threatened by stepping out of line.

    This can include controls on what kinds of identities users express. Facebook and Google+ are at this point of writing increasingly demanding that users prove that their screen names correspond to their real names, especially in cases of unusual handles. This is not just linking online identities closer to legal identities; it also precludes deliberately anonymous or fragmented identities.

    They mention, anecdotally:

    The Facebook decency code bans exposed breasts, which have led to removing photos of breastfeeding and cancelling the accounts of mothers posting pictures. This is somewhat ironic given the less than zealous removal of a paid advertisement with a topless model.

    /@

    1. Facebook cancelled the accounts of new moms sharing pictures of themselves with their new babies?

       Damn.

       That’s fucking evil.

       I could see some presumably-religious prude complaining, but I’m at a loss to imagine how the company could possibly consider such complaints valid — especially in this day and age!

       b&

       1. Depends. Was the placenta included in the pics?

          1. “She totally misunderstood her doctor’s instruction to eat after birth …”

             /@

30. The double standards are not good (but as pointed out elsewhere, it may be a matter of receiving complaints to enforce the standard).

    What is more appalling is that a factual statement is deemed offensive.

31. I’d like to defend one of the cartoons – the one with the two panels, one showing a menacing Nazi, the other showing a menacing Israeli officer.

    There is no way this can be construed as anti-Semitic. On the contrary: you can’t go along with the cartoon and take the side of the Palestinian in one panel, without also taking the side of the Jew in the other panel.

    (Whether the cartoon is right or wrong to draw the analogy it’s drawing is a separate question.)

    …At least, so you would think; but the person posting the cartoon does seem to have a serious chip on her shoulder, and I’m not at all confident that she didn’t intend a point more objectionable than the cartoon itself.

    I know this is all beside the point: some of the cartoon examples are quite revolting; and the original banned “Jokes don’t kill” image is in my view entirely blameless (and I didn’t share the objection some people here did to its wording).

    1. Leaving aside, of course, the fact that the Nazis were on a mission to exterminate entire ethnicities, while Israelis are mostly acting in self-defense, so that the soldier figures in both panels are not at all comparable. And for that matter, neither are the victim figures.

       Nonetheless, I think I have to agree with you about it not being overtly anti-Semitic, especially since armband of the soldier in the right panel portrays the flag of Israel, not just a star of David.

       OTOH, to imply that the Israeli offense & defense against the Palestinians is comparable to the Holocaust is quite a stretch, IMO.

       1. I actually think the one with Netanyahu is the only one that’s making a political point – which is about the pride Israel takes in the specificity of its missile attacks even though hundreds of people are killed. In spite of its dodgy undertones and the nature of the people who seem to have posted it I think it’s relatively clever. It’s certainly more subtle than the others.

       2. I wasn’t saying the cartoon was above criticism, just that it was above one particular kind of critcism.

          My main critcism of the cartoon would be that it’s so vague: it’s saying, “There’s some sort of parallel here” but is as noncommital as it can be on what exactly that parallel is. Its “cleverness” simply amounts to using exactly the same visual composition twice; you could have put almost anything at all in the second panel – Oliver Twist being refused a second helping of gruel – and had the same superficial punch, provided you’d made the linework similar enough. (I have to say, I wasn’t at all certain what exactly the soldier was doing in either panel.)

          1. I’d first read the words above the cartoon–“Real Nazism”–as its caption, which I thought explained rather well its intention. Looking back, I see that that might have been added by the Tweeter instead.

             At any rate, I do agree now that this is more of a political than an anti-Semitic cartoon, much as I dislike that particular political view.

32. Doesn’t it depend on individuals reporting the issue? Facebook couldn’t possibly go through all the posts to look for offensive posts. They just rely on people reporting that stuff. Generally, the anti-Israel groups have a really homogeneous population which agrees with these sentiments while Dr. Coyne’s FB following is undeniably more diverse which leaves room for certain individuals to take offense.

33. Reblogged this on mariapapageorgiou30.

Comments are closed.