Hey There Everyone!

For those who do not visit Matt's site on a regular basis (where I originally posted this) I thought I would repost. It has only been a couple days since Hanna's article, however, already the names of innocent families are being discussed in the community...only because they have a son named "Joe".

cry me a river, sweetheart. You speak on something publicly, it can only become more public, not less. You take a risk when you speak out. You think my friend, H.I., has a thin skin? Really, a girl who is writing a memoir of her experience living as a journalist in one of the world's most repressive dictatorships?
This is a girl who stands up and risks lots for what she has to say and what she believes in. Some others can't even take responsibility for what they post online.

Jesse,

Were you commenting on my comment?

I'm just commenting on the general atmosphere/situation. I don't want to get into a pissing match. Just sticking up for my friend.

This is Rebecca, Hanna's sister. I have been watching this discussion unfold from afar and think it is only fair that I enter it rather than continue to watch silently.

I think one important piece of understanding that is missing here, is that our hurt is legitimate, regardless of your intentions, whatever they may be. You can explain them, and you may certainly apologize for them. But barring that this hurt will not go away, and certainly not by telling us to “take a joke” or “stop being so thin-skinned.” OR by suggesting that we have somehow called you “Hitler” simply by taking all your statements over the years and lining them up side by side. Are you really suggesting we cannot speak up unless we actually find a burning swastika on our yard? I have read your posts, Eric, and I find it difficult to believe you are so incapable of understanding nuance. But it is an easy technique to hide behind, I am sure.

When Hanna first showed me the initial post -- “Yes, I believe that the Hall o' Fame o' the Trotter was the designated bar/bat mitz"pha" venue for all 5 of the Jewish kids in Goshen. I think it helped that their parents collectively owned/ran the town” --
I was shocked and upset but also mystified. While I don’t know most of you on this site, I did know Bess from afar in high school, and I thought her to be one of the sweetest people at Goshen High. I was therefore perhaps the most personally upset by this statement, and I reread it to myself over and over – and to others around me who reacted with universal shock – in an attempt to find some irony, some sense that this could somehow be a joke taken out of context.

I spent the next hours sick to my stomach, and obsessing. I couldn’t stop thinking about those words. I planned to write to Bess herself immediately. I thought that if I could just talk to her, I could explain my hurt and perhaps get an explanation from her in return. But when I later returned to the site, and saw the responses to my sister’s post, it all seemed so nasty. Eric wrote, “Oh, how I've missed your luxuriantly thin skin.” How utterly delegitimizing that was of my sister’s (and my family’s) sincere pain. Bess’s response was similarly dismissive. It did not seem to us that this forum, on anything but neutral ground and in a place where the participants seemed more determined to impress their friends then to rectify any harm, was a place where real discussion could be had. It is therefore interesting that Eric suggests my sister avoided debate by writing an article—isn’t the point of an editorial this very debate? We honestly felt that not only was the forum of Eric’s weblog not proper, but that this discussion was not just about us, rather it was about the whole community.

Hanna’s column merely brought the debate into the public, and did so without giving away your identities in case you did not wish to engage in such public debate. But please don’t argue slander (and if you want to, read a few textbooks first)—she did nothing but honestly cite your own statements, and explain how they made her feel. If someone comes across your site and therefore your identity because of her piece, you cannot at the same time argue both that your statements would be an obvious joke to any non-over-sensitized reader, and that she has somehow defaced your good name. You will be judged by your statements alone.

I don’t think you understand how hard it is for a Jew—certainly how hard it is for my sister and me—to stand up and call something anti-semitic. The fear of being called thin-skinned or too quick to react, or unable to take a joke, looms over us and often keeps us from speaking out when it is an issue that affects us personally. Hanna and I have spent much of our lives standing up for other people when we see injustice, and we can take any level of insults in order to do so. But it is SO hard, so much harder in fact to actually speak up for oneself, and this is exactly why. Hanna did try to tell you how this made her feel, and you know how you reacted. I just don't understand how you can think for a moment that you were encouraging debate with your comments. Calling someone thin-skinned for acknowledging her pain only suggests that you are interested in further ridicule, and to me at least that comment was even more hurtful and upsetting to confront than the initial statement itself.

Equally delegitimizing is the suggestion that my sister or any of us are only interested in showing off, in being “activists,” and that we are using you as a tool to do so. How unbelievably insensitive, and equally evasive of the true issue at stake here, and that is:

Is it or is it not possible that the suggestion that Jews gather together to “collectively” –suggesting some sort of cabal – own/run the town of Goshen – could sincerely upset a reasonable person? Particularly in light of Goshen’s not-altogether-sterling history? Is it or is it not possible that the sudden realization that my sister and I were not just another pair of Goshen kids in everyone’s eyes, but rather two of the “Jewish kids” could also be hurtful? Of course we are proud of our Jewish identity, so proud—what does that have to do with wanting to be (and believing we were) known as ourselves first? And what does it mean that the Jewish kids alone have to be content to be labeled by their ethnicity or religion first, or risk being told they are ‘ashamed’ of it, while other kids are free to be known by their names and personalities?
I should mention here that Bess’s later posts suggest that she does understand how such comments may be made hurtfully—I only wish that partial apology had been given initially instead of snide replies.

I am also still unsure how this comment can be written off as a joke—I am considered by most to have a great sense of humor, particularly when laughing at myself. But when a joke is only funny if one buys into the underlying bias, then the joke itself is biased. If this was meant to somehow make fun of people who could actually believe such a thing, please email me and explain that to me personally. I read ever word of that post and others, obsessively, so I do not believe my understanding (or that or many of the other posts I read) was unfairly taken out of context, at least not out of the context existing in cyberspace, of which there seems to be plenty.

As for AE’s comments: please do not suggest that you have the authority to define for all Jews what is or is not hurtful, simply because you are Jewish yourself. No one has that authority, and your judgment is particularly suspect. (See, for example, http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/2005_01.html, suggesting Federal Judge Michael Chertoff can’t handle our national security because he’s Jewish: “Chertoff would look macho MAYBE in an IDF uniform.”) If you yourself choose to enjoy or tolerate such jokes, that is completely your prerogative, but please don’t suggest for a second that your Jewish identity gives you the right to stifle someone else’s desire to speak up and say, “you hurt me.”

Finally, the suggestion that we Goshen Jews have not faced or cannot understand anti-Semitism is without knowledge or basis. Need we really argue over who faced more hardship growing up? Is it not enough to know that Jewish kids in Goshen grow up hearing expressions like "pick up that quarter, Jew" or "she really Jewed me down," or "funny, you don't *look* Jewish, and that's a compliment," or "I should have known you were Jewish" by a classmate who dislikes you -- need we really face something more extreme before we are “allowed” to speak up? And wouldn't it be nice if someone else spoke up first? And of course, I don’t need to say that the suggestion that Jews ran Goshen is absurd particularly in light of some of the difficulties Jews as a group faced in Goshen—to name one example among many the Goshen school board’s refusal to consider suggestions to move graduation from Friday night, the Jewish Sabbath.

I loved growing up Jewish. And I loved growing up in Goshen. I knew this stuff existed; it’s just always upsetting to see it when it crops up. And I just wish you guys would have reacted with some sympathy—it’s amazing how people can sometimes be so liberal until confronted with the fact that they themselves have been the ones to cause hurt—whether intentional or not.

One more thing—it’s actually not that hard to book a room at the Trotter museum—try just calling. Believe it or not, we didn’t actually have to call the “elders” together to get us “in.” Regardless, I had my own Bat Mitzvah party in my own backyard—we might even be close to owning it.

flawed, that’s my word of the day, come on in folks, the waters fine…
as a friend of all…

please keep in mind as you read this, you cannot simultaneously prepare for and prevent war. i understand the immediate defensive postures, but for the sake of the free world steady your fingers on the button.

“i don’t find any of the others [comments about jews] to be even remotely offensive”. this glib little ribbon so perfectly wraps our parcel that i’ll let it stand on its own. some seem well unable (unwilling) come to grips with the glaring reality that this is not solely about what they find offensive. i ask not that you “adopt the collective belief systems of all of humanity” but only offer the observation that you do appear to be surreptitiously demanding they adopt yours. you are more than welcome to go on acting and speaking as you please, that is both the glory and the folly of this existence, but know full well you also relinquish any right to complain when people call you on it. when i wish to avoid a firestorm with myself in the crosshairs i at least consider what the firing squad says. for truly, god granted choice; he did not promise we would like our options. (um… it also mildly disturbs me when someone pledges to “refuse to tolerate bigotry spoken in malice” or do i ass/u/me(?) the former qualifier can be differentiated from its kindler, gentler, lesser known cousin ‘fuzzy bigotry’.)

while i agree public exploration of such a touchy subject must be done delicately, the article in question fell far short of the declaration of war (i mean calumny? honestly). as well the rather inquisitive, “i wonder (used at least three(3) times)”, tone makes the term ‘accusations’ a flagrantly difficult sell. hanna came off as far more concerned with the unsteady foundations of her world view than damning those who shook them. as a non-jewish man some of these statements just stray dangerously close to the ole classic “oh, those cwazy jews and their money…” to fly right. it also makes me wonder how many comments specifically calling to task Christian hierarchy/megalomania/ money/ idiosyncrasies (no, really, i wonder, like i said words, not swords). and that’s not even getting into the “jew fest”, “post-traumatic jew”, etc. remarks and the underlying implications there. by the way, i also notice mistransciption(?) the of the mildly disrespectful “ba[something] mitzpha” to “bar/ bat mitzpha” in later posts. i understand the desire to make casual and basically innocuous jokes (sites like this would likely not exist without such banter), i’m just saying some people take this quite seriously (for good reason) and care about your elaborate grayscale. sometimes--you’re either pregnant or you’re not.

one minor aside, for those who fancy reverse psychology and specious reasoning as actual logic, and by leaps and bounds find themselves on hannah hates the jews island. by such bulletproof logic any stout denial of the questions posed promptly reveals the cover up of rampant anti-Semitism of the area. i don’t think the young jewish girl in question hates her jewishness, she may just be wondering aloud if this a battle that she wishes to have to fight when her grandchildren are that young jewish girl. and by the way unless you can notify me of any hostilities towards Portuguese people and/ or conspiracy theories surrounding their running of the world/ keeping us down, that one’s a sieve; furthermore plenty of say, Asians wholeheartedly resent the goody-goody, straight a’s, science and math asian stereotype (didn’t they just make a movie about that?). intentional or not a piece of our humanity is stolen through the implication we “jest stepped off the ole assembly line fit to specs”. i think that’s what hanna reacted to. these were not random comments. they parallel comments many “real” anti-semites make. if you dress up like a cop, don’t act so weirded out when someone runs up to you on the street and asks for help. you might not actually be a cop, but…

in all honestly, however, i must disagree with hanna on the bible quotation (not to mention the essential statement lives at the root of faith itself). what is the bible but examples of things people do wrong so that we might avoid their missteps and vice versa. without a tone on this one it’s reaching. maybe a better passage to cite would be about “people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me” would be more happy happy joy joy but either way it emphasizes ms. strauss’ point. a nazi armband is a symbol but true darkness blooms in the heart (rose by any other name…) and needs not these things. it needs not even your own consent. unless the self proclaimed accused have cleansed their hearts of the seed of evil and are actually being raptured as i type. don’t be so quick to stroke your own righteousness. be thankful on those rare occasions when someone really focuses the mirror on you.

anywho, my main point is differentiating between blatant identification of a person as “not one of us” and “not one of us and you’d better run” is quite difficult and anyone who hasn’t done an intensive, first person insult to hate-crime case study probably can’t tell. i don’t think hanna puts any present company in the latter category. but as we’ve already discussed once the weed finds the field the flowers will never own it outright again. one last… by they way for one preaching the gospel of liberation through transcendence of the banal wasteland of pc-dom and thus the shackles of others perceptions, you rather laboriously bemoan such a superficially besmirched reputation.

finally, may we all accept this invitation to delve into the depths of self and allow the foundations to be shaken if need be. and good god how do i always end up in these things. i swear, a face to face is worth a thousand emails. at this time i wish to sign off and officially floor a motion to ban electrons.

Something about this debate bothers me deeply; I slept on it so as not to rant impetuously. The funny thing is, I am as subdued as I get at noon on a Monday (that's pretty damn subdued), and I still feel as though I could explode. I think this business of "feeling hurt" in the absence of intentional harm is ludicrous. I do not deny that people hurt in this world, often as a result of chance circumstances; however, there must be a point at which we refuse to grieve outwardly (place blame) and start dealing with our own problems. This is the real world. People say offensive things. How could anyone feel as though she has the right not to be offended? Deal with it. My gosh, get ahold of yourselves. I am being general; I will now be specific:

To neglect intent is to embrace the most insidious (by virtue of its prevalence and mischaracterization as an innnocuous philosophy) form of utilitarianism. It is to assume that all that matters is effects; that causation or intent have no legitimate role in morality. Someone is hurt, and all that matters is that someone is hurt? Therefore, whether the person who hurt them is kind-hearted or not, he is demonized? Intent plays no role? We should even *gasp* refrain from JOKING about ethnicity and race? What about the Good Samaritan who helps an elderly person cross the street with the best of intentions, only to be misfortunate enough to feel the effects of a bus that ran a stoplight? Sure, the outcome is terrible; but do you fault that person for a good-faith gesture? I am not suggesting that Eric writes everything in good faith; rather, he doesn't write with the intent to hurt people. Sometimes our actions have unintended (and inauspicious) consequences. In such cases, we must be able to deal with misfortune and/or pain/grief without blaming. Can't you deal with your pain without having to blame someone for it? What if you were a tsunami victim? Who are you going to blame? God? Intentions are important, and ought not to be overlooked. You should not continue to demonize someone who had no intentions of hurting at all; someone who is remorseful at that, even though he is not (morally) at fault. Further, this notion that jokes ought to be suppressed is ridiculous. If you are so identity-obsessed that you can't take a joke (as was rightfully pointed out, many people make jokes about their own ethnicity/race/identity), then you have a neurosis. Jokes are by definition NOT SERIOUS. If someone makes a joke about ethnicity, it is logical to assume that he is NOT SERIOUS. That is the nature of jokes. Sure, there are people who make ethnic jokes who are hateful, but it does not necessarily follow that one is hateful if he makes an ethnic joke. People laugh at these things in part to mock the ABSURDITY of those who take prejudices seriously--who atually believe in the offensive subject matter. That's the whole point of a joke, you geniuses. If you think Eric Furst is offensive, by God, please do not read me...

I'm staying abreast on all of these comments.

Here's a scenario. At some point, someone in the Ingber family will recognize that this was not done in malice. At some point, I'll come up with an almost suitable apology which apologizes for offense, does not apologize for content, and makes mention to how much more aware I will be in the future. We'll hammer it back and forth for a few rounds, we'll have a couple of phone calls, we'll find closure.

But my family will still be remembered erroneously as anti-semites.

Is that fair? The press is a tool, yes, but it's not a toy.

Other comments:
1) Is this site not loading properly for anyone else? If so, I find it hard to believe that anyone is actually reading my responses. I wouldn't, they're too hard to get to and too long. I'll cry a river when you agree to paddle to the other side to see my position.

2) Rebecca: That would have made a fantastic comment on this site, personal email or phone call. We could have worked off that, found common ground, reached a mutual understanding and healed wounds. It WOULD have been a great email indeed...on Saturday.

3) Maceo: I like how you write, keep up the good work.

4) Those responding to Hanlon: What's the expression, "Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind"? Be careful with that kid, he's got a silver tongue and a history of using it. Hanlon himself, I agree mostly, but manslaughter is still punishable, just not to the same extent as premeditated murder. There should be some reaction if someone is upset, but does the punishment fit the crime?

I don't mean to put anyone else on the spot here, but let's keep one thing in mind. It is possible to assign statements to one person and not another in Hanna's (I give up and sanitizing for names at this point) article. I may be a mouthpiece here, but please, only crucify me for my crimes. I maintain that the inneundo about my family is borderline libelous (others have been advising me it's past the line, but I'm trying not to be a complete piss-ant, just a partial piss-ant), and if you look at things I said in context, I find it hard to believe that you will be able to find the malice that the article implies.

Once again, buddy, it's a little late for self-rightous cries of "couldn't this ahve been settled in private". The web is public, kid, you started this as a public debate. That's a real shame that your family has been 'labeled' anti-semites, but i can't say i feel for you. Stop being melodramatic about how hard it is for a 'joke' to be found offensive. That's life. The world does not turn on its axis for you.

Jesse, why did you put quotes around "labeled"?

Is your contention that they ARE anti-semites, or that they haven't been labeled as anything in the first place?

Just to clarify: my impression from the article was that there was a question as to whether the online comments were from a deep seated anti-semitism or not. I put the quotations there because I think they were accused of anti-semitism, but not necessarily of being anti-semites.
Also, there secondary issue to anti-semitism here is the issue of what people should be allowed to write about. HI is a writer. She found material written about herself. She wrote about said material. Tough beans if the people she wrote about didn't want to be written about, should have thought about that a while ago.
If you want to publish what I have written here in a newspaper, go for it. I won't protest that right, although I may write to the same newspaper to argue. That's all.
sorry for my verbosity.

Re. your manslaughter analogy, Furst, I agree that some sort of "justice" is in order; however, there is something about speech that makes it analagous to virtually nothing else where punitive/retributive measures are concerned: potential. I will even partake of the flawed utilitarian logic that I admonished earlier (the logic of effects) to show that even if we remove the variable of intent, name-calling is still divisive and counter-productive. There is nothing to be gained directly from acts of destruction (manslaughter), but speech (no matter how inflammatory or offensive) forces us to think. Perhaps manslaughter does as well--only at the cost of life. Speech does not kill. If anything this very debate is a dialectic through which everyone will walk away understanding more than her or she did prior. That said, "free-speech justice" comes not from name-calling and labeling, but from the airing-out of ideas and the rational observations made once the dust settles. I don't take issue with Hannah? writing a column, but I'm positive that the accusations made by the article and by many of those who have "suppported" it on this threat will be exposed as empty, if not vitriolic. You, Furst, have a heart and will apologize unconditionally for causing another pain (as one should); however, "free-speech justice" demands no apology from you for your commentary.

Jesse, thanks for clarifying. I don't think anyone is questioning whether or not Hanna Ingber is a writer, reporter or journalist - or whether she has the right to write, report or journalize. I think it's fantastic that we have a free and open press, and I think that the right to free speech is meant to be exercised, not just contemplated.

What I'm saying is that the way she went about it was irresponsible, malicious and possibly meant to further herself at someone else's expense. Her conclusions were outright wrong, and she's brought what is certainly an incorrect label to a family in her own community that does not in any way deserve to be lumped in with people that have worked honestly to earn that label.

I have the "right" to write a letter to the same newspaper accusing the Ingber's of funding terrorism, hating America, being left-handed, putting their pants on both legs at a time, think the designated hitter rule is a good idea, or any other number of context-removed accusations, but that doesn't mean I should do it if I respect them.

I think the implication to be drawn from someone making a statement about Jews running a town, or running anything that they clearly do not run, is that the person making that statement finds humor in innacurately reinforcing racial stereotypes of the role of Jews in society. And if you wanted to speak of such things privately, you could have written a personal email. So I suggest you should probably just apologize and move on.

HEre's what was said regarding anti-semitism int he article:
note, once again, the use of rhetorical questions, of the word 'wonder'. This was not a report on anti-semitism in Goshen, it was an editorial, a person's opinion. Her opinion was that she was the target of anti-semitism. If the accused had wanted to avoid the possibility of being called as such, then those people should not have, once again, POSTED IN A PUBLIC FORUM!!

We discussed where they learned such hate. I imagined Joe and Mary
as children in Goshen, hearing their parents make anti-Semitic
comments at the dinner table.
I also thought about all the other kids I grew up with. How
prevalent is anti-Semitism in Goshen? How many of the kids who I sat
next to in class went home and listened to their parents talking about
the Jews of Goshen owning/running the town? Did other students, who I
thought of as friends, pigeonhole me because of my religion? When a
friend's mother showed disdain for me, ostensibly about my
animal-rights activism, was it really because I am Jewish?

Nina, please keep in mind that I didn't say that statement. I don't even think it's accurate. There are more than 5 jewish families, and they don't run the town.

Jesse, if you are well enough read to understand rhetoric, then you certainly understand that rhetorical techniques are designed specifically to get the point across while pussy-footing around blantant outright allegations. The result is the same. Hanna and I both read Cicero in high school, we both know how rhetoric and oration works. If she was somehow unaware of the connations of her writing, I would be extremely surprised. I give her much more credit than that.

First of all, I was not suggesting that I speak for all Jews. I suggest only that you do not, nor does your sister or mother. And I'll further suggest that the three of you in effect, evesdropped on a conversation I was a participant in, AS A JEW, and from your own Jewish perspective which is VERY UNLIKE MINE, you ran very far afield. You injected yourselves into a PRIVATE conversation being conducted in a public place, in which a Jew was a participant among people of good will who had built a certain level of comfort and trust among themselves. And rather than calling us on it, as you might have might have (that half-hearted whisper could scarcely be heard in the hubbub that is the usual status quo herein) or directly commenting to any of us, since we're ALL available by email through the sites, what happened is that your sister published a newspaper column in the local paper accusing not ME, the Jew who arguably made the most offensive comment, but Bess and Eric and Eric's PARENTS, of being vile antisemites. It's baseless and unfair and anyone else can be conciliatory about it if they like. As the JEW who was a participant in the conversation, I'm asserting that she was wrong in her assessment, approach, her judgment and her journalism, and I'm speaking for me, a Jew and a journalist and a civilized person who is always game for honest debate, but who doesn't care for bashing of any flavor.

I don't think the courts have got their hands around the public/private nature of the internet blogiverse yet, so we can debate that until hell freezes over. If you overhear two people talking on the subway about something and your feelings get hurt, perhaps the thing to do is have the conversation THERE, with a little courage and dignity. Or, in the event you feel a little baffled, maybe you're not sure of what you've heard, how about LATER on the subway? How about a phone call? An email? Any civil overture whatsoever? Instead, we've gone to the press to have an oh-so-thinly-veiled cross-burning, and don't think it isn't. It's an egregious calumny and nothing less.

And Hannah need not hate her Jewishness to feel insecure in it. I didn't say she was self-loathing. I said she doesn't seem to be securely enough grounded in the joy of her Jewishness. I'm going to cede this point to Maceo. If the comment had been about the greedy Jews of Goshen ripping people off, I'd have been all over it. The "Jews control the world" stereotype is comical to me, so I treated it as such at the time, and took it on its face thereafter. If it was offensive to another Jew, that Jew has a right to say something about it. That Jew doesn't have the right to call someone's parents racist in the regional newspaper, which is a MUCH different level of "publishing" than posting on a private blog, and please let's don't pretend otherwise.

Finally, by all means, DO review my references to Jews and Jewishness at http://ae.bigwhoop.org/. The one in question here was that Michael Chertoff's squirrely visage and squeaky voice do not inspire my confidence, and I made no assessment as to his competence at all, other than to say that he's palatable to the right and left (oh, except for those questionable postions on civil liberties). I'd rather have a nice, burly-looking Sabra with an eye-patch.

I have a right to exercise political speech. I'm relieved that my president, whom I otherwise despise, at least doesn't have a little ole Texas pocket full of Jew-fear. And I'm proud that Yids -- my Yids call the Yidden Yids. It's our term and it's not an epithet and it's not even remotely analogous to the "N" word, so let's don't bother with that -- have as much prominence as they do. God knows, God KNOWS we went without any for long enough. My gemilut chassidim is well established, religiously, culturally, in my community, in my writing, in my tzedakah, all the way around. And I have no trouble standing up for it, or for any of my comments, and if you want me to explain myself further, JUST ASK. We're all about the conversation here. And if you want to discuss standards of slander and libel, I'm well-versed in that area, too.

If Goshen was anti-semitic, that's not Eric Furst's doing, and it's certainly not his mother's doing, and I find it utterly intolerable, this attitude that the collateral damage here is somehow acceptable because of past offenses. Go now and get the school board to commit to change its policies. There are problems, to be sure. Go fix them. Take the energy and the anger and direct it where it belongs. But not at these people. It's really that simple.

QUOTED FROM "NINA":
I think the implication to be drawn from someone making a statement about Jews running a town, or running anything that they clearly do not run, is that the person making that statement finds humor in innacurately reinforcing racial stereotypes of the role of Jews in society
END QUOTE

Your diction evidences the main problem with your thought process. *Implications* are made by writers/speakers/subjects, not drawn by others/objects. You are *inferring* negativity from someone who never actually *implied* it. I don't think finding humor in such statements *implies* anything other than a particular sense of humor. To suggest that finding humor in statements about Jews running something or other is anti-Semitic is an *inference*, and a faulty one at that. Keep in mind, again, that humor of this sort is by definition NOT SERIOUS. If anything, the proper *inference* is that Eric finds anti-Semitism so ridiculous that he can make a joking comment about it without the fear of irrational people actually *inferring* that he is serious.

hopefully my last, copied from my post on matt's site:

Is it possible you all might want to reconsider your definition of "anti-Semitic"? You do not have to hate Jews or want to kill them to make an anti-Semitic comment. And you certainly do not have to intend anger, or be aware of the possible subconscious underpinnings of what you say, to be wrong or hurtful and to owe someone an apology.

As for the debate any of us 'should' have engaged in with you all--this was not our forum or a group we felt all that comfortable with, for reasons that should now be obvious to you all. If you want to publish statements about someone on the web that will be found when that person is googled, and add to that comments that are taken by many objective observers to sound like textbook anti-Semitism--you really can't be surprised or angry when that person chooses to publish her response in a different, more neutral, forum. You published much less self-reflective statements on the web about my sister. I cannot understand your outrage in response to her publishing her feelings on the subject without even using your names. You can't always dictate all the terms of the game, just because you started it.

Was Hanna 'pussy footing' around an actual accusation? That's matter of opinion. You seem to think she actually was accusing people of anti-semitism; I saw it as a much more self-reflective "What do people think of me?" Just as you may accuse her of overblowing your 'joke', you can be accused of overblowing these 'accusations'. There's a lot of verbal puffery going on now, as I find on most web forums. One of the reasons I try to avoid them. And yes, these are fragments of sentences, so please, go ahead and delegitimize my entire point because of grammar or spelling. As fun as it may be, I don't really want to engage in verbal swordplay just for the fun of it. Not when it seems so many people are being hurt by something.
You, Aaron, are intelligent enough to know what Nina meant: that making a joke like that means you find the stereotype funny, which is offensive if you are the sometimes target of the joke. And if you're going to make that public... well, I've made that point a few times today already. What the accused seem to miss is that the main issue here is that the statements were public! Any subsequent claims to privacy are void!

Right on, Rebecca. I have never met you, but already have a lot of respect for you.

I find the real sin of it all to be the fact that I live in an area that our only daily newspaper feels it’s important to print young adults misgivings about their high school peers. I’ve seen blogs run by adolescents that have more mature subject matter. Ms. Ingber doesn’t even live with the circulation area of the THR, and yet she is chosen as the first columnist in a new feature that’s intended to give people of the community a voice. URGH!!!
I’ve never met nor dealt with anyone involved in this matter (and I really don’t care too much about any of it), but to me it was very apparent reading the first line of her article, that Hanna is self obsessed and therefore likely to take words in jest very personally. Really, who has the inclination to actually google themselves?

Rebecca, I posted that I went to your sister's Bat Mitzhvah at the Hall of Fame of the Trotter. There is no implication of anything there. Later, when she made a sweeping statement based on a single questionable comment to that post (not my own, and also not serious, but I see how it could be misread), I made a similiarly sweeping reply, dismissing it as ridiculous. Fine, my response, given the fact that Hanna actually never did have the mutual respect or understanding that she claimed, was inappropriated. I assumed that she remembered at least slightly who I was or at least a little bit about the balance that we had so painstakingly acheived. But, always alert to the possibility of being persecuted, she went to the press immediately. Again, it's her right. It has nothing to do with me, really; go to her initial insult, am I REALLY that brazen? All I did was give a trigger to a trigger happy individual.

I would note that my definition and your definition of anti-semitism doesn't matter when the discussion is aired in the press. It is the general public's interpretation of the word that is important.

Ahh, Jesse, don't underestimate yourself. You're effective enough with your language. It's another rhetoical technique really. Look at me, I'm the simple honest person...disregard my obvious understanding of human nature and rhetorical reactions, I'm just a simple understated man!

We can outlaw ad hominem while we're at it, that would certainly not hurt anything.

I could care less about the public vs. private thing you're so stuck on, Jesse; so if any of that stuff is directed at me, I yield to you: make it all public henceforth. I don't want to put words in Eric's mouth, but I think the only public/private issue with Eric is a nuanced one; that is, one that depends upon the libel litmus test(s) administered by the courts. Otherwise, I don't think he has a problem with public statements that are any combination of true, non-libelous, and even risque. He writes an edgy blog. If I'm wrong, then I will disengage. I'm just concerned with whose claims are legit and whose aren't. Yes, I understand what Nina wrote. I nitpicked because her rhetorical errors were indicative of logical errors as well. The way we write says a lot about how we think. Speaking of which, I can write like Wordsworth, in the rustic language of everyman, or I can write like Derrida and be pretentious about it. It's your choice, but I'm still gonna push a point.

wow, rebecca. well said.

the reason hanna's piece became 'self-reflective' is that it is indeed the integrity of someone's idenity that is challenged (or hurt) by racism, while we're speaking openly.

"The way we write says a lot about how we think."
I agree, it does. I'm sorry I didn't spend the extra minute to edit my comment on this blog but I do have other (better) things to do. However, I will say that you write like an asshole, so what does that say about how you think?

so let me get this straight: people have no sympathy for the hurt Hanna felt as a brunt of joke that targeted her, specifically or by association of race; but they also expect sympathy themselves for being called anti-semites?
Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy here?
Fine, you want people to let you joke at their expense no matter what? Go for it. But you will suffer the consequences. Back to my broken record cry of, 'Buck up!'

I was careful (and will continue to be careful) to only criticize your ideas, and not you as a person. To preface what I am going to say, some serious advice: ad hominem will get you nowhere. Further, a minute of editing would not suffice, given your rhetorical errors. To reiterate what I said, your word choice was more than just a simple confusion of the difference between implication and inference--it was a blatant indication that you most certainly did read into what Eric actually wrote, and inferred your own notions of "racism" (sic) where all that was present was an off-the-cuff, joking comment. I don't deny that the comment was offensive; however, where would you draw the line between what speech is offensive and thus inappropriate and what is not? If you can figure that out in an "extra minute" of editing (as if all you had to do was replace a comma or something), then I'll be one impressed asshole.

Aaron, I'm going to have to recuse myself soon but here goes: enough with the pretentious verbosity. You yourself admit the comment was offensive. Well, then the fault is with the offender, not the offended. Hanna did not pillory Eric, she certainly caused him no physical harm. She is a writer, she wrote about it. She did not even use his real name. You are honorable to defend your friends, but they were wrong! It wouldn't have been such a big deal if an apology had followed! I have seen Hanna deal with innappropriate comments directed at her before, and she dealt with them with grace and style. This was different for her, more personal, clearly. All the references to Derrida and to Wordsworth will not change that fact. You are very intelligent, very learned, and very well read. Good for you. I'm duly impressed. I know you will never see things my way, so I'm going to get back to work for the remaining 30 minutes I have to be here.

I'm sorry, that is not to say that her column was not graceful or well-done, I know I will be devoured for that slip.
What I meant was that in the past, I have seen her disregard innappropriate comments. This one she could not disregard. Not because of journalistic ambition as someone so speciously charged, but because it hurt her. I respect her for speaking out publicly, I do not censure her.
(You see, I can be sesquipedalian as well, I can also be unctuous, perspicacious, can quote from Sartre, Camus, Herbert Read, and Fitzgerald. Go me.)

I am 100 % aware of the fact that none of you reading this or participating in this cares what i have to say, and once i say it, I expect nothing more than to be insulted in some intelligent way, that will require me to refer to a dictionary to understand fully the sentiment behind your insult. Perhaps you will be kind enough to follow your intelligent insult with a definition in parenthesis.
Eric, I dont know you well at all, and I could never have been bothered to, as I am sure you never cared to know me either. In your defense, however, I must make H I, her family, and her friends aware of the fact that you are an asshole.
I am in no way making light of the feelings she and her family must have felt when reading the alleged anti - semetic statements in question. I must however remind them that this is coming from the same kid who told me day after day to shut up because I was fat and/or ugly, loudly, so all the kids in class would look at me and laugh in my face every time I would simply raise my hand to answer a question in science class.
Although they were just words,that you have probably long forgotten, they completely invalidated me as a person with a mind, (assuming you are a person with the belief that the human mind does, in fact, exist) and have followed me throughout my life so far. Please do not misconstrue my example as being "ad misercordia. " Trust me, I don't need or want your pity nor would I ever expect or ask for an apology, I am just trying to show Hanna that even if she wasn't Jewish, I'm sure you would find some other way to ridicule her or anybody else publicly. It seems that you are still good at it. Maybe that is your true gift. Perhaps I am wrong... maybe you have changed your ways since the days of pimples, baby fat, and cracking voices.
As I reread what I have written so far, I do notice a disdainful undertone, and it is not my intention to be scornful or resentful of you in any way. My intention is to shed some light on this situation by bringing it to the attention of Hanna, her family, and her friends, that you are not at all an anti - semite, but, in fact, just an asshole.

It may be difficult for someone who has not been through being discriminated against to fully understand the experience. Bigotry and ignorance is often subtle and veiled. Also, one may not be fully aware of their prejudices, and usually are not, until they are defined by others around them through conversation. I imagine this is what this is. There may not be any resolve here, and and some level that would seem insincere. A lot has been put on the table to be digested, and it deserves time. Someone has expressed hurt, and the response to this seems mostly to be defensiveness. That is natural. Can we take small steps towards healing these injuries? Perhaps acknowledging that some things might have been taken out of context while others were in fact offensive might be a good start.

It's not a specious charge, Jesse. I thought maybe it was, around 4 a.m., after reading lots of Hanna's material, http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/002835.html, but I'll tell ya, after a whole day of this, and not a word from her, and not a scrap of ownership or accountability or contrition or responsibility for HER ATTACK, I gotta say I'm coming to that conclusion. Her attack was not offhand, or wry or funny, or even untentional or a joke, nor even ignorant or misguided. It was deliberate and premeditated and targeted.

And if you want to talk about specious, stop comparing what she published in the paper to what we published on the web as though they were the same thing. Nobody went hunting for an insult and a character assassination about the Fursts and Jankowskis. They got kicked in the face with that when they innocently opened their Sunday paper. So did all their friends and neighbors, as well as the friends and neighbors of some guy name Joe. Nice.

Googling all through someone's website and their friends' websites, determinedly scratching around to find anything remotely plausible as racist is rather different. And further, in your perspicacity, you surely recognize the distinction between making even an outright blatantly racist claim about a class of people -- and no such thing here occured -- and staging a targeted ad hominem attack on a couple specific, innocent individuals.

This is intolerable. You are bringing up things that a man did when he was a child. God knows I did some horrible things as a kid that I really, truly regret. We all have. If I could only go back and punch that little Self in the face a few times and right some wrongs it might make me a feel tiny bit better, but I CAN'T so all I can do is HOPE and PRAY that the victim understands that I have grown and, above all, REPENTED for my deeds. Likewise, I have made a distinct effort to not harbor hatred towards those that hurt me when I and they were younger because I know that they have most likely matured AND because constantly hating is no way to go through life.

I am sorry, truly, about what has been done to you, but the person responsible is not around today. As a good friend of his and consistant reader/commenter of Eric's website I vouch for his goodwill. Eric is NOT an anti-Semite or a bully. HE IS NOT. How many of his accusers KNOW Eric as he is TODAY? I suspect none.

Carl, you may have repented for your deeds, but I see no evidence here that Eric has. When he was younger, he made offensive and hurtful comments to get a laugh. In his comments to which Hanna responded, he made offensive and hurtful comments to get a laugh. (His good buddy Aaron admits as much). You may see a difference in personality, but I certainly do not.

I don't know Eric personally, but to expect people to pity him for being accused of anti-semitism when he makes comments that are so traditionally and unquestionable anti-semitic is beyond me. I would suggest that Eric do some reading into the history of anti-semitic rhetoric and thought over the past 200 years and understand why his comments were so hurtful and interpreted as such.

All he needed to do was apologize for making hurtful and offensive remarks. Now THAT would have shown some repentence for his sins.

I guess I should have edited some of the parts that seemed as though I am resentful of the past. I thought that by mentioning the fact that I could very well be wrong, that perhaps he has changed his ways as we all do when we grow up, that I could avoid a shaming. I'm no hater, and I figured that by explaining that my intentions were not to be scornful or resentful in any way but merely to defend the accused, by giving an example(an outdated example, yes, but nonetheless an example) of the fact that even though I don't know Eric that well, I'm sure he is not Anti - semetic. My guess is that if he is going to say something about you or to you, he is going to say it, regardless of your creed. Which in my eyes is an admirable thing. So I called him an asshole. Personally I would much rather be called an asshole than an anti -semite. Like I said in my original comment, I am not looking for pity and I would never want an apology...that's not what this was about, to paraphrase it without using a childish word like asshole, my intention was to say, without making light of ANYBODY'S feelings, "hey come on, this is from the kid who is known to tease... don't think he is singling you out because of your religion" I mean, he wrote about teasing Seamus for looking like a "fag"(shit sorry i hope that didnt just open up another can of worms). I never called him a bully... and yes, I did call him an asshole, but only in his defense. Not only that, I read the comments and I don't think he said anything worth all this fuss to begin with. I do not harbour hatred or bad feelings for Eric Furst and I really thought that that transcended my comment. I do apologize for the confusion, and on your voucher I will state that perhaps he is not the asshole, I thought he was, and I commend Eric for maturing, and I commend him even further for sticking to his guns.

As the person who made the original statement, I think I'm being given way too much stereotype/pop-culture know-how credit with the implication that my intent was to "inaccurately reinforce racial stereotypes of the role of Jews in society."(©Nina) Maybe I'm disconnected from mainstream society or something (I kind of am, actually, since I don't have a tv and can't keep up with the latest primetime/sitcom stereotypes), but I didn't even know that "the Jews running everything" WAS a stereotype until now. Call me slow or naive or simply out of touch, but I hadn't even entertained the idea of that particular connection. For whatever that's worth.

Dude, it's Goshen. Home of the Hall o' Fame o' the Trotter. You can't tell me I'm the only person from Goshen to joke about its lack of diversity. If somebody joked that Goshen was run by the parents of its 5 Polish kids -- and I took it seriously -- I wouldn't be hurt; I'd be honored.

And, you know, there ARE Jewish people in positions of power/influence/whatever in Goshen -- and throughout the United States and abroad -- and I applaud them wholeheartedly! I certainly don't know exactly how many there are, just like I don't know how many Catholics hold political office, or how many Hindis teach Poli Sci at the local community college, or how many Episcopalians sit on the library board.

But the fact that Jews, an historically oppressed group, have made their way to the top in a town (in a country!) -- where unless you're a white anglo-saxon protestant male it's still largely an uphill battle all the way -- is something to be proud of -- for everyone, not just people of Jewish faith!

HOW is it bad? How is it bad to acknowledge that Goshen isn't 100% British/Irish colonialist settler anymore? That it's made SOME progress, has SOMEWHAT diversified culturally? Or am I just not allowed to point it out since I'm not Jewish?

Similarly, as a woman -- women historically being another oppressed group -- I can't imagine being hurt or offended over someone's mention of women getting ahead. To me that just seems backwards, logically. If somebody made a joke about the fact that my company is headed and run -- and staffed -- primarily by women, my response would probably be something along the lines of: Damn straight it is, and don't you forget it.

And there's a difference between referring to someone anonymously in print and referring to someone "anonymously" -- i.e., giving plenty of thinly-veiled clues as to their real identities -- in print. I have no problem with people figuring out who I am and coming to my site to discover that in reality I'm the biggest bleeding heart liberal this side o' the Mississipp' (no offense to hospital patients with actual bleeding open wounds, by the way), but I do have an issue when you bring my family into it -- however subtly you claim to be (come on, how many "anonymous" kids had fathers who were teachers when you attended school there?) -- multiple generations of whom have lived in/around Goshen all their lives and have got on quite amicably with their neighbors -- Jewish and Christian and Muslim and Swahili and Portuguese alike -- thus far.

Hell, my mom has probably headed up charity drives & whatnot with your mom, our fathers have probably coached the same little league teams. My entire extended family is actively involved in the Goshen community -- several teach, have taught, have driven buses, and worked in the cafeterias of the public schools -- so you are not just oh-so-covertly pointing the finger at a nameless/faceless set of parents, but at the very gears and levers that -- alongside you and your kin and everybody else in Goshen -- run the machine.

Everybody's so interconnected and the town is so small that you're basically pointing the finger right back at yourself. If the "hate" you're seeking even exists in Goshen, it certainly isn't going to be rooted out by framing and slandering the identities and families of two people you KNOW aren't hateful. And you know, Hanna. I know you do.

I posted similar comments on some other linked sites, and I thought I would post these thoughts here as well - mainly so E1st reads them.

I recognize and believe that he does not feel himself to be antisemitic. However, he also created a "joke" which both highlighted an ethnic group and then distorted their power. Given that this same ethnic group had been persecuted for being so powerful and controlling in another society 60 years ago, creating a similar type of distortion of reality presently could set off all sorts of alarm bells in members of that ethnic group. Jokes can be both humorous and racist - even though not intended to be so.

My take on his "joke" is that it indeed reflected unconscious racism on his part. His justifications, clarifications, and rationalizations do not help the matter. All they do is show a lack of sensitivity and empathy.

Admittedly, E1st did not mean to offend, but he did. Focusing on the other person's thin skin as opposed to apologizing for the hurt he inadevertently caused is avoidance of accepting responsibility.

And oh, by the way, in case anyone should wonder, my faith tradition is Christian.

Jim, Furst never said anything about the power Jews have in Goshen except in reference to comments made by others. Are you lumping all Bigwhoop bloggers into one category?

If our theme is apology, then I guess I apologize for my "pretentious verbosity." I'm sorry that I wrote a few paragraphs that made you insecure about your intellect, so much so that you were incapable of responding to the actual substance of my argument. I'm sorry that I referenced Wordsworth and Derrida--if you were writing a Masters thesis in English and doing research that more or less consumed your acacemic life, you'd have them on your mind too. Don't hold it against me--it makes you come off as horribly insecure. Yes, I admitted that the comment could be offensive. Anything could be offensive. That's the point. Being offended in this world is about as big (or as little) a deal as tripping on the curb; oops, that happened--get over it. You can't go through life with a sense of entitlement, a sense that you have the right not to be offended (EVEN IF YOU ARE JEWISH, AFRICAN-AMERICAN, FEMALE, HISPANIC, ASIAN, IRISH, OR BORN IN THE SOUTH, like me). What makes any of you think that being offended over your Judaism is any worse than, say, when my friend told me that since I was Catholic I must have been sodomized by my priest? How could you even know the varying emotions and degrees of offensiveness that exist in individuals? How could you let it dictate your life so much? Give it up. If you want to talk about pretentiousness, how about those of you who believe that you're somehow the enlightened few who have the power to allege that others have apochryphal, "hidden" prejudices? The notion of latent prejudice is in many cases a ploy to accuse people of unfounded hatred. If you grew up in recent history, chances are that you probably weren't influenced by racism or ethnocentrism to the extent that you harbor serious latent prejudices that simmer within you only to explode on the helpless, hapless victims of hate speech. Please. Maybe you're latently prejudiced against jokes and intelligent debate. Either way, you have no more evidence for your claims of latent prejudice than I do for mine. Parroting the latest multiculturalist/victimization rhetoric will get you nowhere with me, nor will trying to mock me because I actually read, write, study theory, and reflect it in my posts. If you think I'm writing some kind of self-aggrandizing diatribe, you are woefully mistaken. I'm trying to stand up for someone who I know to be fair, rational, moral, and kind (and for his family as well). That I pay attention to my diction, have a vocabulary that exceeds those of high-schoolers, and refuse to let rhetorical and logical deficiencies slide (particularly where they result in the defamation of well-meaing people) should not be the subject of your criticism. If you have to dismiss me because of that, then I feel sorry for you.

Trent: My mistake. I thought it was E1st who made that comment and not Bess. Both have now apologized in what I consider an appropriate and genuine manner. Hopefully those who were directly offended will accept the apologies and move on. I really do not believe either E1st or Bess meant any harm whatsoever.

No, but Hanna Ingber did, and she was most successful at it, and she has not apologized for it nor even acknowledged what she did.
Ultimately, it will stick with her longer than any of the good people she has harmed, because this http://ae.bigwhoop.org/archives/002837.html is how we hire journalists nowadays. We google, just like clever Hanna.

And we can find out what else they've been up to besides the pretty little packages they present with their resumes. And I absolutely wouldn't want anyone so unaccountable and irresponsible on my staff, or any other. She would be a real liability.

Anyone who can smear an entire town, and crucify decent people over inadvertent offenses and malign completely uninvolved third parties. That's a loose cannon. I hope she builds her talent for dramatic fiction, because she sure as hell doesn't belong in journalism.

[*map/map_cn_sd1_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_cn_sd2_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_cn_sd1_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_cn_sd1_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_cn_sd1_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_cn_sd2_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_cn_sd3_mordy.txt||10||r||1|| @]