To: <anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com>
References: <20040302031934.71283.qmail@web14423.mail.yahoo.com> <006b01c400c8$d309a3a0$6401a8c0@winfirst.com.winfirst.com> <008e01c40171$cbd51c50$5cbd9f3f@y3gnu>
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] agreement and disagreement
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 22:25:41 -0500

Patrick once wrote:
"Secondly, the word anti-Semitic isn't merely descriptive. It attaches a stigma to anyone that is labeled by it."

Peter Staudenmaier replied:
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 jumped in:
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.

Which Peter Staudenmaier snipped to:
"It may be historically mistaken, but it is true in the present time"
And then Peter wrote:
I disagree. It is entirely possible to discuss whether or not a given statement is antisemitic without stigmatizing anybody. Your own argument on this score is self-contradictory:

Daniel responds:
Ok, so it may be theoretically possible in a few cases. But even you would not claim that the label anti-Semite has never, ever stigmatized those to whom it is (rightly or wrongly) attached. If stigmatization is theoretically possible, then we should be very, very careful about how it is used. Arguing that in at least some cases it is possible to attach these labels without stigmatization continues to ignore the fact that in general this is not possible.

Peter then further quotes Daniel:
"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."
Peter then writes:
If these attempts failed, then it is obviously possible to successfully counter charges of antisemitism. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a "failed attempt" along these lines. When somebody says that statement X is antisemitic, the best thing to do is to look closely at X and try to determine whether it is indeed antisemitic. You can't do this if you have decided ahead of time that all such assertions are automatically tainting and hence to be avoided.

Daniel responds:
This is a classic evasive tactic, but not actually logical. In fact, it is astoundingly illogical. If a successful evasion of the label anti-Semite is possible on the grounds of innocence, it does not follow that no one has ever been falsly stigmatized. It is of course true that if "somebody says that statement X is antisemitic, the best thing to do is to look closely at X and try to determine whether it is indeed antisemitic." And of course it is not possible to apply a label if we first decide that it can't be used. I would disagree that it is impossible to use a label that stigmatizes merely because we first acknowledge that the label we subsequently decide on can stigmatize. A thing is either true or untrue, regardless of how we subsequently label it or whether there is any opprobrium attached to the label. If our thinking is indeed so weak that it is incapable of judging properly in full knowledge of the consequences of our judgment, we might as well give up any attempt to think logically right now.

Patrick wrote:
"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 replied:
"Merely saying such things cannot have this effect..."

Daniel jumped in:
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.

Peter then quotes Daniel:
"If political operatives find it advantageous to attach that label to their opponents, they must have some reason."
Peter then writes:
It hasn't occurred to you that they might actually believe it?

Daniel responds:
Political operatives at the national level? Surely you are not so naive! Of course I considered it. It was the first possibility I discarded.

Peter then further quotes Daniel:
"Unfortunately the general public is not so discerning."
Peter then writes:
I think you have an unduly dim view of public discourse. In my experience, lots of people are capable of taking a look at what other people say and write and deciding whether they think it is racist or antisemitic. When you disagree with their conclusions, it's a good idea to offer evidence and reasoning that they might not have considered.

Daniel responds:
Chalk that up to another distortion. In denigration the discernment of the general public as evidenced in their opinions (with reference to advertising as well as politics) I was not talking about discourse, and this is clear in my original. Snipping the original this short distorts this, and hides the fact that you are "correcting" a view I never espoused. Public discourse is the only thing that keeps our politics even remotely sane.

The fact that lots of people are capable of discerning racism and anti-Semitism does not make them immune from advertising, whether for products or ideologies. My original point still stands. It is possible to fool the public by repeating something sufficiently frequently. If nothing else, this is the main lesson of the whole Nazi experience. Propaganda is a method, not a message. Propaganda could be used to denigrate Steiner's reputation, simply by repeating a simple message, such as "Steiner was a racist", whether it is true or not, until it becomes established truth in the minds of many. If you don't acknowledge this possibility, you have missed one of the main lessons to emerge from the experience of the Third Reich.

Daniel Hindes

The thread continues.