One could argue that anti-semitic canards, when not personally aimed at anyone, are opinion, while insults and invective directed at a particular person constitute an attack. It is always tough for people who value free speech to shut down an opinion simply because it is offensive. Now I don't know how much SI, or Jeff, or anyone here, values free speech (based on some things I've seen here, and persecution of certain opinions- I'd have to say many of the posters don't value it at all), but that is one possible way of looking at it.
I would rather read generalized canards, than see one on one attacks. At least with offensive opinions, not personalized or directed at a particular person, one can learn more about why the person who holds the offensive opinions holds them. And of course, I have always felt that many many more people are repelled by these ideas when they are put forward than are "converted". So they are sort of like an immunization. For most people immunizations keep them free of disease. A very few unlucky people catch the disease, so it is with your canards.
Although why you compare anti-semitism with the very few atheists and agnostics around here, I've no idea. Seems a bit of a jump. The agnostics and atheists I know don't want to do anything to anyone else. They merely want to be protects from anti-agnosticism and anti-athiesm. And you have never really given enough respect to the posts Karen has made pointing out just how marginalized atheists and agnostics are by many who claim to represent us in government. If such things were said about Jews I believe you would feel moved to write a very long post decrying the injustice of it all. |
