Having recently read « The Devil that Never Dies » by Daniel Goldhagen, I am no longer astounded at this ignorance, nor by the instinct for censorship. Both these things are what antisemitism actually feeds on (as much as animus). You really opened my eyes by commenting that people engaging with you were looking for opportunities to perform outrage. You’ve really touched on something there. Thank you, Gabriel.
Anybody reading your piece should know that it is only by discussing antisemitism seriously and openly that we will, perhaps, begin to combat it. It is the oldest and most prevalent social virus on Earth. I call it a social virus because it is a irrational and murderous ideology based on fear and loathing. It is highly contagious and highly adaptive, more adaptable than any other ideology that has ever existed—full stop. These are facts set forth in Goldhagen’s book. Antisemitism feeds on human ignorance. But (and AND) When people do not or cannot understand conceptually that censorship is an aspect of authoritarianism, they make the problem worse.
I understand that there are lines to be drawn. Use of certain symbols and language is sometimes hate speech. Hate speech can be harmful and should be regulated. There are certain contexts in which hate speech even should and can be censored. But displaying symbols in an historical context is not hate speech in this country.
There is currently a case involving the international art world in which the promotional material for a state-sponsored art exhibition did display antisemitic content found in one of the artworks. The promotional material fell foul of laws prohibiting hate speech. The museum director resigned. Affiliate organizations withdrew funding support on the grounds that there was a severe judgment error, in the beginning on the part of the curator and the entire organization, in accepting the artwork for exhibition. The artist denies the antisemitic content. But most people reviewing the case believe that the artist is lying.
It seems to me that this kind of deep investigation and dialog, the level of dialog you encourage here Gabriel, is really what it takes to push through the thornier issues.
Let’s stay deeply engaged, and let’s stick with our Constitution as a guiding framework to regard knee-jerk censorship as a last-resort solution. Goldhagen believes that free speech may be one of the reasons why antisemitism has historically had more trouble grabbing hold in the US. It’s true that antisemitism is on the rise here, and that is troubling. But it is on the rise at rates lower than the rest of the world.
Instead, to combat antisemitism, we need to use our our hearts, our minds, our pens and our mouths. All four. The work is that hard.
Excellent piece on an underexamined form of censorship. You've covered social media in some of your essays, and this is also a great reminder to me that the medium of Twitter is optimized for an individual's brief assertion and an anonymous mobs' immediate reaction. I appreciate your efforts to carry out an important discussion on a Twitter thread, even if the author is unwilling to critically explore the issue.
Also, I've made a quiet promise to myself to use the word "instantiation" in a conversation by the week's end. Bonus points if the person I'm talking to isn't a software developer.
Somehow I find myself more concerned by those that are actually censoring things, like the Tennessee school board mentioned in the article, rather than anonymous scolds with no power over anything or anyone. These posts are circulated not because they have any value but because people engage with them, presumably in the same way as this article, like an ouroboros of stupid indignation.
It seems that sensible liberals are more concerned over vague calls for censorship from "the left" on social media (calls posted with zero forethought, retrospection, and typically, no formal political affiliation) than censorious laws and policies unilaterally imposed by the governments and corporations who actually hold power over the public conversation.
I once music directed a production of another musical where the swastika appears on stage: The Producers. A week or so before tech rehearsals, I was given a tour of the costume shop where I noticed that the swastikas were "in the wrong direction." Due to a memory of an episode of "The Night Stalker" that I had watched in my youth, I recalled that the 'reversed' symbol has strong(er) ties and associations with other cultures and religions of the world - Buddhism and Hinduism in particular. Thankfully, only the uniform patches had to be redone; the main set pieces - the banner and flags - were still being built.
I recently saw the “Sound of Music” at the Glimmerglass Festival, and, like Aspen, they had two large red banners hanging from the prosceniums, each with a swastika. Their effect was stark but effective in reminding the audience of the terror of the Anschluss and subtly warning them it could happen here! I had family murdered in the Holocaust who thought they were Austrian and had nothing to fear!
I read this also. Reminds me of the story, probably 15 years ago, when a local theater company in Florida was doing a production of "The Vagina Monologues." They advertised it on their marquee. A local woman objected, complaining that she had driven by the theater with her daughter, and saying her daughter shouldn't have to see that word. So the company changed the marquee to "The Hoohah Monologues." Well, turns out Eve Ensler stipulated in her contract that there could be no censorship of the word "vagina." So the company had to change the marquee back. The great part is that the company didn't succumb to pressure to cancel the production. Unlike the current problem in Florida.
I would have picked a different musical, for exactly this reason. They are indeed missing the whole point of the musical if that flag is not purposely desicrated as part of each performance, and gosh I know they are too pro Ukraine-Insane to do that.
Having recently read « The Devil that Never Dies » by Daniel Goldhagen, I am no longer astounded at this ignorance, nor by the instinct for censorship. Both these things are what antisemitism actually feeds on (as much as animus). You really opened my eyes by commenting that people engaging with you were looking for opportunities to perform outrage. You’ve really touched on something there. Thank you, Gabriel.
Anybody reading your piece should know that it is only by discussing antisemitism seriously and openly that we will, perhaps, begin to combat it. It is the oldest and most prevalent social virus on Earth. I call it a social virus because it is a irrational and murderous ideology based on fear and loathing. It is highly contagious and highly adaptive, more adaptable than any other ideology that has ever existed—full stop. These are facts set forth in Goldhagen’s book. Antisemitism feeds on human ignorance. But (and AND) When people do not or cannot understand conceptually that censorship is an aspect of authoritarianism, they make the problem worse.
I understand that there are lines to be drawn. Use of certain symbols and language is sometimes hate speech. Hate speech can be harmful and should be regulated. There are certain contexts in which hate speech even should and can be censored. But displaying symbols in an historical context is not hate speech in this country.
There is currently a case involving the international art world in which the promotional material for a state-sponsored art exhibition did display antisemitic content found in one of the artworks. The promotional material fell foul of laws prohibiting hate speech. The museum director resigned. Affiliate organizations withdrew funding support on the grounds that there was a severe judgment error, in the beginning on the part of the curator and the entire organization, in accepting the artwork for exhibition. The artist denies the antisemitic content. But most people reviewing the case believe that the artist is lying.
It seems to me that this kind of deep investigation and dialog, the level of dialog you encourage here Gabriel, is really what it takes to push through the thornier issues.
Let’s stay deeply engaged, and let’s stick with our Constitution as a guiding framework to regard knee-jerk censorship as a last-resort solution. Goldhagen believes that free speech may be one of the reasons why antisemitism has historically had more trouble grabbing hold in the US. It’s true that antisemitism is on the rise here, and that is troubling. But it is on the rise at rates lower than the rest of the world.
Instead, to combat antisemitism, we need to use our our hearts, our minds, our pens and our mouths. All four. The work is that hard.
Excellent piece on an underexamined form of censorship. You've covered social media in some of your essays, and this is also a great reminder to me that the medium of Twitter is optimized for an individual's brief assertion and an anonymous mobs' immediate reaction. I appreciate your efforts to carry out an important discussion on a Twitter thread, even if the author is unwilling to critically explore the issue.
Also, I've made a quiet promise to myself to use the word "instantiation" in a conversation by the week's end. Bonus points if the person I'm talking to isn't a software developer.
Somehow I find myself more concerned by those that are actually censoring things, like the Tennessee school board mentioned in the article, rather than anonymous scolds with no power over anything or anyone. These posts are circulated not because they have any value but because people engage with them, presumably in the same way as this article, like an ouroboros of stupid indignation.
It seems that sensible liberals are more concerned over vague calls for censorship from "the left" on social media (calls posted with zero forethought, retrospection, and typically, no formal political affiliation) than censorious laws and policies unilaterally imposed by the governments and corporations who actually hold power over the public conversation.
I once music directed a production of another musical where the swastika appears on stage: The Producers. A week or so before tech rehearsals, I was given a tour of the costume shop where I noticed that the swastikas were "in the wrong direction." Due to a memory of an episode of "The Night Stalker" that I had watched in my youth, I recalled that the 'reversed' symbol has strong(er) ties and associations with other cultures and religions of the world - Buddhism and Hinduism in particular. Thankfully, only the uniform patches had to be redone; the main set pieces - the banner and flags - were still being built.
I recently saw the “Sound of Music” at the Glimmerglass Festival, and, like Aspen, they had two large red banners hanging from the prosceniums, each with a swastika. Their effect was stark but effective in reminding the audience of the terror of the Anschluss and subtly warning them it could happen here! I had family murdered in the Holocaust who thought they were Austrian and had nothing to fear!
I read this also. Reminds me of the story, probably 15 years ago, when a local theater company in Florida was doing a production of "The Vagina Monologues." They advertised it on their marquee. A local woman objected, complaining that she had driven by the theater with her daughter, and saying her daughter shouldn't have to see that word. So the company changed the marquee to "The Hoohah Monologues." Well, turns out Eve Ensler stipulated in her contract that there could be no censorship of the word "vagina." So the company had to change the marquee back. The great part is that the company didn't succumb to pressure to cancel the production. Unlike the current problem in Florida.
I would have picked a different musical, for exactly this reason. They are indeed missing the whole point of the musical if that flag is not purposely desicrated as part of each performance, and gosh I know they are too pro Ukraine-Insane to do that.
Will performances of "Cabaret" start being preceded by 'trigger' warnings?