Fatah’s children’s magazine Waed, issue 41, April 2022 A few weeks ago I sketched a framework for discussing antisemitism. In that post, I made two primary points: (1) that “antisemitism” is often too broad, vague, and value-laden a term to be useful in discussing acts and speech that target Jews; and (2) that understanding such acts and speech within a rubric “expressive harm” rather than definitions can be more helpful in analyzing and discussing them. The question ultimately should not be, “is it antisemitic?”, but, “does this speech have a disproportionate effect on Jews, and if so, is it a harmful one?” This is very similar to how we often approach “microaggressions” and speech that targets other vulnerable groups.
"For me, intent - as can be intuited from actions, contexts, and choices - is almost more important than words when it comes to racism and antisemitism. People on opposite sides of an issue who share good intentions have space to dialogue."
I like that and find it interesting. Sometimes good intentions are overrated. Actors have to take responsibility. Good intentions are often used as an excuse. But the quote goes into a different direction. Here good intentions not as a justification for going to war, but as a sign to being open to dialogue. Very different.
"For me, intent - as can be intuited from actions, contexts, and choices - is almost more important than words when it comes to racism and antisemitism. People on opposite sides of an issue who share good intentions have space to dialogue."
I like that and find it interesting. Sometimes good intentions are overrated. Actors have to take responsibility. Good intentions are often used as an excuse. But the quote goes into a different direction. Here good intentions not as a justification for going to war, but as a sign to being open to dialogue. Very different.