To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040302031934.71283.qmail@web14423.mail.yahoo.com> <006b01c400c8$d309a3a0$6401a8c0@winfirst.com.winfirst.com>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:49:31 -0500

Patrick:
"Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by it."
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is historically mistaken. The term "antisemite" was coined by antisemiites themselves (most prominently by Wilhelm Marr, founder of the League of Antisemites); it obviously carried no stigma for them.

Daniel:
It may be historically mistaken, but it is true in the present time, and it is to the present time that you are writing. In the present, attaching the label anti-Semitic to someone is to attach a stigma to them. Witness the failed attempts to paint Arnold Schwarzenegger with this label during the California recall election. If political operatives find it advantageous to attach that label to their opponents, they must have some reason.

Patrick:
"Surely you understand that by saying that anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner are racist and anti-Semitic you contribute mightily to the perception of them as such."
Peter Staudenmaier:
"Merely saying such things cannot have this effect..."

Daniel:
Were that this were true. Unfortunately the general public is not so discerning. Were this true, then all forms of propaganda and advertising would be useless, and we would not see any form of them in our culture. Since we do see a considerable amount of advertising, there must be some ability to convince people by repetition of things that are not always true. Your statement shows either an incredible naiveté about how ideas spread in the world, or a studied ignorace of the consequeces of your own actions.

Daniel Hindes