@AbbieNormal @clacke

I didn't think you meant harm by it, but there are two forces at play.

First, any time one person "intellectualizes" hate, it's walking dangerous ground. It's very hard to do well, and there's a tendency to "justify" it in a sesne.

Secondly, antisemitism is unique in that it's not a limited time issue, and that the justifications always shift and change. It has a tendency to lead to "If they only did ___, they'd be okay" and it's never true.

@AbbieNormal @clacke

This ties into the belief that many Jews have (particularly North American Jews) that if they assimilate, they'll be accepted.

Jews have always had this conflict of assimilation vs not- it's even in the Hebrew Bible! Many Jews, including me, struggle or have struggled with it.

It's part of the search for peace from persecution that Jews are constantly seeking, but never actually find.

That's why understanding antisemitism is different is important.

EOF :)

@emacsen @clacke

Ok, assumed that I gave up on my attempts to make antisemitism a part of something larger, I think it can be helpful to briefly illustrate the thesis of the books I mentioned

This has to do (in my opinion) with the (lack of) time limitedness of antisemtism and with the arguments "if they had just.."

(deep breath)

@emacsen @clacke

The main idea of the author is tha the human species is the only liveing species (as far as we know) exposed to the awareness of being destined to die

@emacsen @clacke

he believes that the cultures that humanites have created along its history are huge building around the anguish of death

@emacsen @clacke

he uses this perspective to explain the evolution of the phenomenon that's otherwise studied by what we call "scienze politiche", science of politics

not just recently but from the beginning of humanity

@emacsen @clacke

he explores ancient and far away indigenous cultures (with a hint of anthropology)

He explores literature, culture in general

he argues, among other things, that urbanization started as a need to be close to graves to practices rituals related to the dead

@emacsen @clacke

he argues that religion has been a human creation to oppose the death anguish

the ethernal life, partculary

the divine judjgement and the need to appease the God(s) is seen as a psycological desperate reaction to the terror of being destined to rot

@emacsen @clacke

then he goes on to the political rvolutions and he applies the same argument

the new man promised by revolutions is just another defense against the death anguish

@emacsen @clacke

so the idea is that "others" threath our integrity towards the divinities and put our salvation in jeopardy

@emacsen @clacke

Admittedly the author doesn't simplify the nazi experience

That was me

I think the author was jewsh himself, I'm not sure

I just was superficial in believing I could make this analogy in a probably too simplistic way

@emacsen @clacke

I just found the book compelling

I think it explains evil in a way that is more convincing and less prone to contrdictions than any other way I know

@emacsen @clacke

the wikipedia page about the auhor has a contetsation of enciclopedic relevance

As you know many wemen or not white people are erased by wikipedians this way

I believe this is a confirmation of the originality of the idea by this author

Techbors and wikipedians, lacking humanistic culture, are particulary prone to mistakes due to the defence against any threat they may feel knowingly or not

@emacsen @clacke

In fact vicimhood is a very efective rethrocal trope in that demographic

@emacsen @clacke

So I see that whole phenomenon as another example of what the author argues

Ok, I'm getting cheesy, I'll stop here 🙂