Berkeley riot organizer = insane idealogue

HindaRochel

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 1:27 pm

Just a note.

Milo was s-xually abused at age 13. According to Milo what he said was edited to make it appear as if he were endorsing man/boy love. In fact, he was talking about the abuse he had suffered, and he was dealing with it with gallows humor. You can believe or not believe him as you want, only the full tape would disclose more. In any case he was in two abusive relationships. If I understood him correctly the abuse lasted until his 20s.

And he handled it by seeing himself as the person who did the pursuit, giving himself power.

He did not, according to him, advocate relations with underage children. We would need, again, access to the whole tape.

George Takei said much the same thing as Milo did about it not being abuse if the child finds the adult. In that case, he is speaking of his abuse at age 13 with a counselor at a camp.

Both men were dealing with the abuse they suffered by acting as if it wasn't abuse.

Sarsour: Is anti-zionist. Whether you consider that anti-semitic or not, I do. And I do consider her anti-Semitic.

FranticFrummie

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 1:31 pm

marina wrote:

Most of the time anti-Sharia laws are passed, they focus on how court decisions can't be based on sharia law. This is not an issue- I've only seen one court decision that was bizarre that way. In general these law try to shut down their Islamic courts, the Muslim versions of botei din.

In light of that, think about our botein din and how people often perceive how Orthodoxy treats women. I think that if people found out that women cannot testify in our Jewish courts to the same extent that a man can, and that many women aren't allowed to drive and so on, society wouldn't look favorably on Halacha-law as well as Sharia-law.

Dang it Marina! Why do you have to go and be nice, and start using logic like that? Now I have to agree with you, and it's giving me cognitive dissonance.

Here's a gold star from me. I'm fresh out of puppies. Very Happy

SixOfWands

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 1:43 pm

HindaRochel wrote:

He did not advocate relations with children who did not reach z3xual maturity. It strains credulity to believe that he was engaging in gallows humor about "Father Michael." Listen to his interview with Joe Rogan, where he refers to himself as the aggressor in the relationship. Listen to the unedited version of the Drunken Peasants tape, available here https://discover-the-truth.com.....ilia/

I just wonder how Yiannopoulis defenders would feel if instead of talking about how good it is for older men to z3xually guide young boys, who don't really have anywhere else to turn, the discussion was on the z3xual repression of young girls in Jewish communities, who learn nothing about z3x and have no one to turn to, and how wonderful it is for older men to have z3x with them, and help them.

Fox

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 1:44 pm

Marina, to quote Christina Hoff Sommers, "Calm down, dear!"

Interestingly, I've rarely shied away from expressing strong opinions here on Imamother, and I've never been banned or suspended or even told to tone things down. To what do you attribute that? It's certainly not that my opinions are universally endorsed. In fact, often quite the contrary. However, I try very hard not to be belligerent and to use sarcasm sparingly. This is not to say I always succeed; just that I am not the one getting threads shut down.

The "interesting discussions" that are shut down are most frequently about religious practices, halacha, and hashkafa. In fact, we have a whole sub-forum for "Respectfully Learning" with the rule that threads are not to be used to debate various practices. While I don't consider religious questions too dangerous to ask, I also don't believe that anyone here has the requisite training and experience to answer most of them; thus, I don't participate.

As for shaming, I've lost track of your point. I certainly don't think you're "shaming" me for defending Milo or for being willing to talk about fat-shaming. And even if you were, what would happen? Would I catch leprosy or something? I might have my feelings hurt. I might think you were a jerk. If I were honest, I might contemplate whether you had any valid points. Heck, if I were really mature, I might conclude that you had my best interests at heart and simply conveyed it imperfectly.

My DD, Clementine, and I regularly have discussions about fat-shaming and the concept of body positivity. Clem is particularly interested in the topic because, while she's in phenomenal shape, she has broad shoulders and an Amazonian physique. Very attractive, but definitely not the tiny-boned, cutesy look that many people associate with femininity. But none of our conversations can be summed up with "fat-shaming is okay" or "fat-shaming is bad."

So I'd love to discuss the concept of shame in molding behavior. But so far no one has been interested in doing so, aside to say how terrible they believe it to be.

As for Linda Sarsour, I agree with you completely. I found her attack of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to cross a line, given that Ali is actually a survivor of FGM. I also happen to believe that support of BDS is disingenuous; while protesting Israeli policy does not ipso facto constitute anti-Semitism, BDS has repeatedly drifted over the line.

Based on her most recent actions, I'm guessing that Sarsour is planning to run for public office and is attempting to soften her image and stands somewhat. Well, good for her! Maybe she didn't want to be shamed as an anti-Semite.

People are messy and complex. Whoops! That's a quote from Milo. Never mind.

Last edited by Fox on Wed, Feb 22 2017, 3:35 pm; edited 1 time in total

Fox

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 2:36 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I just wonder how Yiannopoulis defenders would feel if instead of talking about how good it is for older men to z3xually guide young boys, who don't really have anywhere else to turn, the discussion was on the z3xual repression of young girls in Jewish communities, who learn nothing about z3x and have no one to turn to, and how wonderful it is for older men to have z3x with them, and help them.

Okay, so let's discuss that.

Here's my take on it:

No one in the observant Jewish world is defending pederasty. In fact, I've read that classical sources say that the Jews were the only culture that didn't engage in the practice. No source on that; maybe someone else has one.

That said, pederasty has been a reality for thousands of years in the non-Jewish world and there's no point in expressing our disgust.

I agree that lack of s-xual knowledge is a significant problem among young women who've grown up in insular Jewish communities. However, there is a significant difference in the way Jewish society operates: people are discouraged from engaging in s-x outside of marriage. Therefore, filling the need requires taking that into account.

And, in fact, we tend not to get terribly worked up over a man marrying a woman many years younger. Obviously, we don't envision that their marriage is all about teaching the woman about s-xuality, but I definitely hear the arguments made for maturity, stability, financial responsibility, etc.

The guidance you're talking about should ideally come from kallah teachers and written sources that young women can consult without embarrassment. I can even imagine a question-and-answer website for women on s-xual topics. For some women, kallah classes at least come close; for others, it's simply another halacha class to get through. At any rate, we obviously need much better ways of getting information to women.

As for practices in the gay world, I am reluctant to give advice. I blessedly have no dog in that fight. However, there are definitely voices who believe that gay culture can and should develop different models of s-xual initiation. They believe that greater acceptance in society at large and the availability of same-s-x marriage can give young men a different set of options that weren't previously available. Of course, there are opposing figures, primarily in queer theory, who denounce all that as simply aping normative heteros-xuality.

For a humorous take on that, there is nothing better than Dave Rubin's interview of Milo a while back, in which Rubin attempts to convince a dubious Milo that gay marriage is a good thing because your husband will cook for you. It is both hilarious and disturbing.

HindaRochel

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 2:38 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

He was s-xually abused and reacting to his abuse. He stated that what you were hearing was not the whole of the interview. Or at least that is what I understood of what he said.

Also note: most boys aren't sxually mature until age 15-18.

I'm not defending him or George Takei, who, again, said practically the same thing. I also have not been abused. He and Takei both were abused.

They did not, to the best of my knowledge, abuse anyone.

I can understand the psychological need to claim that they were the aggressors, that they sought the older person out, that they wanted it. There is power there in erasing a truth, the unequal dynamic that is involved in such relationship.

I'm not defending his words, I'm stating that he was the victim. That is how he explains himself. Believe him or not, or choose different words. However, unless you believe that Milo as a 13-year-old was the aggressor and that it wasn't child abuse, then Milo was the victim, as, by the way, was George Takei.

How an abuse victim deals with their pain is a deeply personal thing. You may feel this is the wrong way of going about it, and I would agree.

Can you not see, honestly, how seeing themselves as the aggressor would have given them more power? Would allow them to see themselves in a different light? And that he may have to have made that normal in order to feel okay about himself?

Milo has apologized and stated emphatically that he does not advocate adult/child relationships. Not sure if Takei has responded similarly yet. I'm sure he will.

However to blame him for saying he was the aggressor and it was all okay is rather cruel imho.

Milo and Takei were victims.

Again, unless you do feel that he was the aggressor.

I mean, would you say that to a woman who was recounting her experiences and saying it was okay, and she was fine with it? Would you call her a pervert or would you understand she was reacting to her pain in an unhealthy way? Yes, she'd be wrong to say it was okay, but that's how he was dealing with it.

The wrong way.

I mean we can criticize his saying what he said, but also understand how horrible abuse is that a person would react that way to it. Excuse it rather than see themselves as victims or survivors.

Maybe a little sympathy for the pain he suffered?

I agree he should be called out on it, but with understanding.

PinkFridge

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 9:14 pm

Fox wrote:

Before I quote Chazal, I just want to say that the reason so much of the new pc is appealing to us is because we have been taught concepts like ona'as devarim, systematic and thorough halachos of speech, etc. So the world at large is on to something, but often it falls flat.

So about shame in molding behavior:
* Hamelaben pnei chaveiro b'rabim ain lo chelek l'olam haba. Now if someone goofs once, don't worry, teshuva is available. Ask mechila, etc. But a "melaben" is someone who habitually does it. Big problem there and much harder to repair.
* Which leads into "hochai'ach tochiach es amisecha." This is not a saying from the sages but a verse from the Torah (not patronizing you, Fox). There are guidelines for giving reproof, e.g.
- not doing it b'rabim, in public
- telegraphing that you feel that the person you're reproving is amisecha, your friend.
* Does it really work, or "work"? Will it make long-lasting changes? Will it help build a person?

Is this enough to start a discussion?

PinkFridge

Wed, Feb 22 2017, 9:18 pm

Fox wrote:

As for practices in the gay world, I am reluctant to give advice. I blessedly have no dog in that fight. However, there are definitely voices who believe that gay culture can and should develop different models of s-xual initiation. They believe that greater acceptance in society at large and the availability of same-s-x marriage can give young men a different set of options that weren't previously available. Of course, there are opposing figures, primarily in queer theory, who denounce all that as simply aping normative heteros-xuality.

For a humorous take on that, there is nothing better than Dave Rubin's interview of Milo a while back, in which Rubin attempts to convince a dubious Milo that gay marriage is a good thing because your husband will cook for you. It is both hilarious and disturbing.

Well, yeah. Me too. Because the gay people I know might be choosing to live lives as halachic as possible (of course we're not going to go into this as it's a taboo topic. Let me just say that I have profound sympathy for people struggling with their identity, and add to that, how or if they choose to live halachically). And the straight people I know don't do the zxual initiation stuff either.

ora_43

Thu, Feb 23 2017, 2:19 am

SixOfWands wrote:

A lot of people believe that.

Frankly, its correct in many case. You can oppose certain of Israel's policies without being antisemitic. Otherwise, most Israelis would be antisemitic (and who is who would depend on the current administration).

Its equating all Jews with Israel that is antsemitic.

Being anti-Israel and "opposing certain of Israel's policies" are two very different things.

People who are genuinely anti-Israel like to play dumb and pretend they're just criticizing policy, but they aren't.

Being anti-Israel can be (not "always is") anti-Semitic, even if the anti-Israel person makes a clear distinction between Israel and Jews. Just like someone would be considered anti-Palestinian if they rejected the notion of Palestinian nationhood or national rights, even if they liked individual ethnic Palestinians (who themselves rejected the idea of Palestinian nationhood).

cbsp

Thu, Mar 23 2017, 8:57 pm

marina wrote:

Wondergirl, I saw this and thought of your post:

http://forward.com/fast-forwar.....tery/

Apparently Linda et al raised almost 60K to repair the vandalized Jewish cemetery. So there's that.

Don't mean to revive this thread but I just read this article:

http://www.israelhayom.com/sit.....18693

Opening paragraphs:

"
Hard choices
Annika Hernroth-Rothstein

In an interview with left-leaning weekly magazine The Nation last week, activist Linda ‎Sarsour said, as part of a longer discussion on Israel and Palestine, that those who identify ‎as Zionist cannot be feminist because they are ignoring the rights of Palestinian women.‎

‎"It just doesn't make any sense for someone to say, 'Is there room for people who support the state of Israel and do not criticize it in the movement?' There can't be in feminism. You ‎either stand up for the rights of all women, including Palestinians, or none. There's just no ‎way around it," Sarsour said, thereby creating an either-or situation for liberal Jews in ‎their relationship with Israel.
... "

The article continues with analysis.

I thought of this thread and wondered if this changes anything for those that didn't think her sharia comment was problematic.