I've seen your most recent "On Being Canceled" newsletter, and I had a few additional points of feedback:
I think leaving your Facebook post up emphasizes transparency, which I appreciate and applaud. However, in your "On Being Canceled" newsletter you say, "To retract or delete it...would also deny the opportunity to have the important and difficult discussion that the post was originally written to provoke." I come back to the question of - what was the "difficult discussion" that you were trying to provoke?
Based on your reply to my comment, if you come to a conclusion that you really were thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some way, you should consider why you chose the word "Jewish" rather than "Israeli government". If you call out a purported negative characteristic of an entire religion when you were actually thinking about of the actions of a country's government where the majority of citizens identify with that religion - seems like there may be more unconscious bias at play than you realize.
As an example, about 73% of Israelis are Jews and about 65-85% of people in the US are Christians (the number of Americans who identify as Christians has been dropping and the number who consider themselves religiously unaffiliated has been growing; however, 85-90% of American say they celebrate Christmas, so I'm guessing most of those "unaffiliated" folks would be considered culturally Christian). When the US was involved in the Iraq war - how often were people pontificating about Christians attacking Muslims? Would that have been the most important lens through which to view this conflict? No, the conversations were about the US attacking Iraq.
And one last thought about this and your "On Being Canceled" newsletter. I fully acknowledge how upsetting and unsettling this past week must have been for you. You've dedicated so much time and energy into helping our town and this is such a sour note to end your many years of service on. You explain the role that local politics played in fanning the flames of this situation. And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I fully agree that it is sadly typical for politicians to jump on any hint of an issue to denigrate their opponents.
However, my personal opinion is that you shouldn't be focusing your energy on any political vitriol that comes your way, and instead, if you feel the need to make any further responses on social media or write another newsletter, you should be thinking about the other people in your community for whom your post was a source of fear. Some of them reacted strongly in the comments to your Facebook post, but a lot of people didn't engage on social media and instead it was just another worrisome drop in the stream of antisemitism that seems to be rushing faster and faster towards the Jews in our community.
For instance, did you know that in November in Greenwich, a 'ten-year-old Jewish girl was punched in the face by another youth who cried “I can punch you because you are Jewish.'" Last May a 7th grade social studies teacher in Darien, "reportedly told students to write a paragraph about how German chancellor Adolf Hitler was 'good for the German economy,' and taught students how to draw a swastika". "In Oxford, two middle school students harassed a Jewish classmate by playing German marching songs and performing Nazi salutes." In November, a Jewish high schooler has a swastika carved into his locker.
If you do write further on this topic, I would suggest that you seriously consider whether what you say helps or hurts.
First, I want to make sure that it is clear that the examples you mentioned sicken me, although I completely believe that they are real. Unfortunately, however, they do not surprise me. I am fully and painfully aware of the violence and vitriol regularly hurled at Jewish people not just here in Connecticut, but across our country and around the world.
As for the politics of the situation, I have no axe to grind or retribution to find. My main goal remains that I use the small platform this incident has afforded me to produce positive ends by which I mean greater understanding, greater appreciation, and a renewed focus on some of the very real problems in our society today. If I can do that, I have used the opportunity in a way I will feel good about.
You have challenged me to dig deeper into the reasoning for choosing to use the word "Jewish" in the context that I did. It seems obvious in retrospect that it is the most provocative word in the short post. I must admit that at the time there was a part of me that knew that I was crossing some line of political acceptability. I am still trying to decide for myself if that line was also about decency. At the time, I certainly did not believe it to be, and I lean towards still believing that to be true that overall. Humility demands that I keep that question open, however, particularly in light of the effect that it had on other people.
The line itself, however, is one that I really do want to find some way to address in more detail. I believe it to be at one of the central cruxes of this entire discussion. That line is where any discussion of Judaism as a religion, Israel as a state, and what it actually means to be Jewish is acceptable and when it crosses over into the unacceptable definition of antisemitism. I will dare say that we probably agree that the level of sensitivity regarding this subject has very little parallels with other subjects.
In the end, it is this that I believe probably led me to use the word "Jewish" in the original post. It was a challenge to that invisible line. It was an effort to say that we need to be able to face these difficult issues with honesty as long as we can be assured that we are doing so for the right reasons. Ultimately, the right reasons are the same as those we all agree on in any situation. They are to get along peacefully, to respect each other, and to allow each other to live the lives that each of us have a right to live.
I am probably the least acceptable type to make this argument. I realize that, and I struggle with it. I'm a white, educated, heterosexual male with some financial means. I am, at least in America, the top of the food chain in terms of privilege. Still, I have a voice. Did I use it in the most positive way possible? Some may say no, but I would suggest that as long as the discussion continues, the jury remains out.
You're saying the intention of your post was to challenge an "invisible line"? And when you say invisible line, you're meaning this line of "political acceptability" in reference to "discussion of Judaism as a religion, Israel as a state, and what it actually means to be Jewish"?
What you seem to be intimating is that the intended meaning of your post was basically, "We need to deal with the issue of people being too "politically correct" when talking about Jews and Israel". Am I misinterpreting what you were trying to explain in your comment? If yes, I would appreciate any further clarification you can provide.
I commend your self-awareness in calling out your privilege; however, I find it curious that you did not say Christian (unless of course you're not Christian, in which case this whole paragraph is moot and I apologize for making a faulty assumption). If you are Christian and a member of the religious majority in the US (and most of the world outside of North Africa and Asia), this would be one of the most relevant aspects of your privilege in this specific situation. I would suggest that this would be additional food for thought for you, regardless of whether this was an intentional or an inadvertent omission.
I don't know if you're still checking notes on this post since you didn't reply to my last comment, but this - two embassy aides murdered outside the Jewish museum in DC two weeks ago and eight peaceful protestors set on fire yesterday - this is why your words matter. This is why people in your community were so shocked and scared by what you said. You said in your newsletter that "Getting nuance from social media is like drawing blood from a stone". But in a world of hot takes, pot-stirring, trolling, and regular everyday bigotry, every drop of ignorance and click-bait just shows off hunger for a pithy sound-bite and contributes to hate and prejudice. Your post was as far from nuanced as it's possible to be but then you blamed all the nay-sayers for not interpreting it in a nuanced way. Your post was not part of any solution to anything, it's part of the problem.
Yes, I always monitor comments, which is why I usually leave them open. My apologies for not having responded to your last comment. As to your question, I don't consider myself a Christian in any religious sense. I am an atheist, which I guess makes me a minority in my country (although a steadily growing one).
I completely agree with you that words do matter, and I believe I have taken responsibility for carelessness in my word choice even if my comment was misconstrued. What happened to the couple at the embassy and in Boulder last weekend is horrible and should be heartily denounced as any hate and violence should be. I would never want my words to encourage that in any way.
As to whether my post is part of the solution or part of the problem, I would respectfully disagree with your opinion on that. I believe the solution is always more discussion leading to greater mutual understanding and not less. Silencing voices only plays into the hate and consistently leads back to an endless cycle of more hate.
In the end, none of us are perfect, and sometimes people will say or do things they regret. I believe that the ultimate truth lies in how people respond, and that is something that we each have as our own very real choice. That is the part that is under our direct control. As a jazz musician, I think of it like this. To paraphrase Miles Davis, a note played is only ever wrong based on the notes that come after it. I don't mean to trivialize this issue, but how people respond to my comment, and then how I respond to their response is central to the issue.
It is just as important, however to be mindful of where we draw the line in holding someone responsible for someone else's response. Therein lies the difficulty in avoiding the very real slippery slope that constantly threatens the very notion of freedom of speech.
I appreciate seeing this comment - no apologies necessary for not responding - this is your substack and you have every right to decide when you're done with a conversation.
I whole-heartedly agree that freedom of speech is important and people can say whatever they want - whether or not it's correct or others agree with them.
But when you say that your post was part of the solution since "more discussion lead[s] to greater mutual understanding", I argue that what this post (which you yourself described as "incendiary") sparked was not a thoughtful discussion, but instead not unreasonable emotion-based reactions.
To use your music analogy, I think the problem was that your post was not a musical note that was part of a melodic exploration. It was the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard - a reasonable reaction to this type of sound is to tell the person to stop doing that because the screech is unpleasant and bothers the listeners.
While a lot of points you bring up (like about the importance of free speech, the importance of discussion and dialogue, etc.) are very valid, I feel like you keep being very vague about your actual post. You say you were "careless" in your word choice and your "comment was misconstrued". Then please do share what you think you should have said instead in your post if you had used precise and deliberate language with the intention of sparking discussion leading to greater mutual understanding.
I thought that was what I did in my post. I offered two options and said at the end that it might have gotten a different response had a gone with the latter instead of what I wrote.
Seeing this newsletter post, I was surprised that you were interested in continuing a conversation on this topic, then intrigued by the first half as I read through your points, and then disappointed by the conclusions you reached.
Since you say you promote “open and honest discussion”, here are my challenges:
“A rational response would be to break down the meaning of the words and then to consider all of the possible ways one might react to the message in order to attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it.”
It feels like you’re confusing the ideas of “rational” vs “logical”. One could, of course, approach your original post as if it were a mathematical logic problem, in which case your meaning of “supremacy as a concept of one group over another is wrong in all cases” is very clear. However, is it rational for a reader to assume that the writer is posting a sort of mathematical symmetric property? I would argue that it’s more rational to apply a basic reading comprehension approach that would (as you say), “attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it”.
“Having already braced for danger…”
I think you did a good job in this paragraph of capturing a typical or expected thought process of someone reading the post.
“The comparison is between two different implementations of the ideology of supremacy defined here as the belief in the superiority of one particular group over another. In this context, the adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant to the actual intended meaning of the sentence.”
If your adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant, then why use them? You yourself say that the “preface warns the reader than the post could be controversial” – you clearly wanted to say something provocative. Could you explain why decided to choose “Jewish” as your “irrelevant” example? For instance, why didn’t you choose “Mormon” or “Chinese”?
Coming back to the idea of a rational response – I agree that a rational response would “attempt to discern the intentions and meaning”, which I argue means looking at this in a real-world context. This was a real post that you made, not a theoretical logic exercise. Let’s image a reader (let’s call them Reader A) who stumbles across your post. For argument’s sake, let’s say Reader A is someone familiar with Jewish historical and current events and culture. Reader A is aware that there’s been a dramatic rise in antisemitic rhetoric and actions over the last year and a half, picks up on the fact that (as you later acknowledged in a comment on your social media post) the “specific phrase ‘Jewish Supremacy’ has been used in the past by white supremacists in an antisemitic way”, and sees that this is a stand-alone post that’s apropos of nothing and not part of any ongoing conversation you were having on social media. Based on these observations, it’s perfectly rational for Reader A to assume that the intention was to criticize Jews. Your post did not provide any additional context to remove any concerns of antisemitism.
Then let’s imagine two other readers – Reader B and Reader C. Reader B doesn’t know much about Jews. Reader B glances at your post comparing Jewish supremacy and white supremacy and may think, “Huh, I didn’t know Jewish supremacy was a thing. It sounds like it’s as big a problem as white supremacy. Maybe there’s something to that nonsense my family member was spouting about Jews trying to take over the world [one of the most wide-spread conspiracy theories].”
Reader C is someone who already has a negative opinion about Jews (about 1 in 4 Americans endorse anti-Jewish tropes). Reader C sees your post and is happy to see someone who shares their viewpoint.
I think you would agree that the outcomes of Reader A, Reader B, and Reader C seeing your post are all negative.
It seems like you’re claiming you were writing for an imaginary Reader D who should have treated it as the mathematical logic problem I referred to earlier. Do you think it’s rational to assume a social media post will only be seen and reacted to by people like Reader D?
“The bogus reaction can come from several motivations. The person reacting may have a grudge against the writer or generally just dislike them for whatever reason. They may simply be one of the many online trolls who just like to cause mayhem and get a rise out of people. Most often, however, they come from political and/or ideological motivations. They harbor bogus grudges.”
I have several disagreements with your commentary on bogus or disingenuous reactions.
Firstly, I agree with you that some of the reactions from your political opponents were probably “bogus”. I think it’s pretty typical for politicians to take advantage of their opponents’ mistakes to further their own agenda, so I’m not surprised.
Secondly, yes, online trolls who thrive on creating chaos and drama definitely exist. However, I think most of the responses you classified as “bogus” are actually “rational” but using “emotional” language. While your original post did get a large number of comments (compared to most of your other recent posts) – there were only 7 distinct individuals who actually commented (apart from yourself). It seems that all of the commentors are local residents, so none of them should be categorized as online trolls. I’ve already explained how the language of your post raised a very realistic specter of antisemitism. So it is perfectly reasonable for people to have an emotional, negative response when they see an elected town official making such a statement.
“It would admit to agreeing with the misrepresentations of it being hateful or antisemitic.”
I do believe you when you say that the way it was interpreted was not your intention and that you did not intend for it to be “hateful”. But, however unintentional, the post you wrote was antisemitic. I believe that you would not knowingly act in an antisemitic way. But we are all human and all have foibles and unconscious biases and make mistakes. None of us are perfect and none of us are aware of every single phrase that has roots steeped in bigotry. All we can do is listen, learn, and try to do better next time.
To be honest, I don’t think you wrote your post assuming all readers would interpret it like Reader D. Because if you had, that would have been a meaningless post. You could have just as well said, “Harassment by any group over another is equally wrong no matter how the group is defined whether they be white, black [n.b. it’s recommended to capitalize Black when referring to people], Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish” or “Murder is bad” or “You shouldn’t drink and drive”. Why would you say “many may find incendiary” if all you meant was “all people hav[e] equal value and deserv[e] equal respect” (from your comment on another of your Facebook posts)? What’s incendiary about that statement?
I believe that you had something else you wanted to say but thought cloaking it in the language you did would make it more palatable. I would bet that you had an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but decided to be vague about it and refer to Jews in general instead. If you want to keep going down this path, rather than thoughtfully considering how you got to this point, I challenge you to write what you actually wanted to say, rather than a “pithy” one-liner or framing yourself as a “victim of cancel culture”.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You raise some very good points and I agree with much of your analysis. I have been asking myself whether I really was thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some way. I have also been thinking about addressing that subject more directly, as I certainly do have a viewpoint as many people do. I will consider accepting your challenge and try to live up to it. Thanks again.
Hi Kevin, Thank you for your reply.
I've seen your most recent "On Being Canceled" newsletter, and I had a few additional points of feedback:
I think leaving your Facebook post up emphasizes transparency, which I appreciate and applaud. However, in your "On Being Canceled" newsletter you say, "To retract or delete it...would also deny the opportunity to have the important and difficult discussion that the post was originally written to provoke." I come back to the question of - what was the "difficult discussion" that you were trying to provoke?
Based on your reply to my comment, if you come to a conclusion that you really were thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some way, you should consider why you chose the word "Jewish" rather than "Israeli government". If you call out a purported negative characteristic of an entire religion when you were actually thinking about of the actions of a country's government where the majority of citizens identify with that religion - seems like there may be more unconscious bias at play than you realize.
As an example, about 73% of Israelis are Jews and about 65-85% of people in the US are Christians (the number of Americans who identify as Christians has been dropping and the number who consider themselves religiously unaffiliated has been growing; however, 85-90% of American say they celebrate Christmas, so I'm guessing most of those "unaffiliated" folks would be considered culturally Christian). When the US was involved in the Iraq war - how often were people pontificating about Christians attacking Muslims? Would that have been the most important lens through which to view this conflict? No, the conversations were about the US attacking Iraq.
And one last thought about this and your "On Being Canceled" newsletter. I fully acknowledge how upsetting and unsettling this past week must have been for you. You've dedicated so much time and energy into helping our town and this is such a sour note to end your many years of service on. You explain the role that local politics played in fanning the flames of this situation. And, as I mentioned in my previous comment, I fully agree that it is sadly typical for politicians to jump on any hint of an issue to denigrate their opponents.
However, my personal opinion is that you shouldn't be focusing your energy on any political vitriol that comes your way, and instead, if you feel the need to make any further responses on social media or write another newsletter, you should be thinking about the other people in your community for whom your post was a source of fear. Some of them reacted strongly in the comments to your Facebook post, but a lot of people didn't engage on social media and instead it was just another worrisome drop in the stream of antisemitism that seems to be rushing faster and faster towards the Jews in our community.
For instance, did you know that in November in Greenwich, a 'ten-year-old Jewish girl was punched in the face by another youth who cried “I can punch you because you are Jewish.'" Last May a 7th grade social studies teacher in Darien, "reportedly told students to write a paragraph about how German chancellor Adolf Hitler was 'good for the German economy,' and taught students how to draw a swastika". "In Oxford, two middle school students harassed a Jewish classmate by playing German marching songs and performing Nazi salutes." In November, a Jewish high schooler has a swastika carved into his locker.
If you do write further on this topic, I would suggest that you seriously consider whether what you say helps or hurts.
First, I want to make sure that it is clear that the examples you mentioned sicken me, although I completely believe that they are real. Unfortunately, however, they do not surprise me. I am fully and painfully aware of the violence and vitriol regularly hurled at Jewish people not just here in Connecticut, but across our country and around the world.
As for the politics of the situation, I have no axe to grind or retribution to find. My main goal remains that I use the small platform this incident has afforded me to produce positive ends by which I mean greater understanding, greater appreciation, and a renewed focus on some of the very real problems in our society today. If I can do that, I have used the opportunity in a way I will feel good about.
You have challenged me to dig deeper into the reasoning for choosing to use the word "Jewish" in the context that I did. It seems obvious in retrospect that it is the most provocative word in the short post. I must admit that at the time there was a part of me that knew that I was crossing some line of political acceptability. I am still trying to decide for myself if that line was also about decency. At the time, I certainly did not believe it to be, and I lean towards still believing that to be true that overall. Humility demands that I keep that question open, however, particularly in light of the effect that it had on other people.
The line itself, however, is one that I really do want to find some way to address in more detail. I believe it to be at one of the central cruxes of this entire discussion. That line is where any discussion of Judaism as a religion, Israel as a state, and what it actually means to be Jewish is acceptable and when it crosses over into the unacceptable definition of antisemitism. I will dare say that we probably agree that the level of sensitivity regarding this subject has very little parallels with other subjects.
In the end, it is this that I believe probably led me to use the word "Jewish" in the original post. It was a challenge to that invisible line. It was an effort to say that we need to be able to face these difficult issues with honesty as long as we can be assured that we are doing so for the right reasons. Ultimately, the right reasons are the same as those we all agree on in any situation. They are to get along peacefully, to respect each other, and to allow each other to live the lives that each of us have a right to live.
I am probably the least acceptable type to make this argument. I realize that, and I struggle with it. I'm a white, educated, heterosexual male with some financial means. I am, at least in America, the top of the food chain in terms of privilege. Still, I have a voice. Did I use it in the most positive way possible? Some may say no, but I would suggest that as long as the discussion continues, the jury remains out.
If I'm understanding you correctly:
You're saying the intention of your post was to challenge an "invisible line"? And when you say invisible line, you're meaning this line of "political acceptability" in reference to "discussion of Judaism as a religion, Israel as a state, and what it actually means to be Jewish"?
What you seem to be intimating is that the intended meaning of your post was basically, "We need to deal with the issue of people being too "politically correct" when talking about Jews and Israel". Am I misinterpreting what you were trying to explain in your comment? If yes, I would appreciate any further clarification you can provide.
I commend your self-awareness in calling out your privilege; however, I find it curious that you did not say Christian (unless of course you're not Christian, in which case this whole paragraph is moot and I apologize for making a faulty assumption). If you are Christian and a member of the religious majority in the US (and most of the world outside of North Africa and Asia), this would be one of the most relevant aspects of your privilege in this specific situation. I would suggest that this would be additional food for thought for you, regardless of whether this was an intentional or an inadvertent omission.
I don't know if you're still checking notes on this post since you didn't reply to my last comment, but this - two embassy aides murdered outside the Jewish museum in DC two weeks ago and eight peaceful protestors set on fire yesterday - this is why your words matter. This is why people in your community were so shocked and scared by what you said. You said in your newsletter that "Getting nuance from social media is like drawing blood from a stone". But in a world of hot takes, pot-stirring, trolling, and regular everyday bigotry, every drop of ignorance and click-bait just shows off hunger for a pithy sound-bite and contributes to hate and prejudice. Your post was as far from nuanced as it's possible to be but then you blamed all the nay-sayers for not interpreting it in a nuanced way. Your post was not part of any solution to anything, it's part of the problem.
Yes, I always monitor comments, which is why I usually leave them open. My apologies for not having responded to your last comment. As to your question, I don't consider myself a Christian in any religious sense. I am an atheist, which I guess makes me a minority in my country (although a steadily growing one).
I completely agree with you that words do matter, and I believe I have taken responsibility for carelessness in my word choice even if my comment was misconstrued. What happened to the couple at the embassy and in Boulder last weekend is horrible and should be heartily denounced as any hate and violence should be. I would never want my words to encourage that in any way.
As to whether my post is part of the solution or part of the problem, I would respectfully disagree with your opinion on that. I believe the solution is always more discussion leading to greater mutual understanding and not less. Silencing voices only plays into the hate and consistently leads back to an endless cycle of more hate.
In the end, none of us are perfect, and sometimes people will say or do things they regret. I believe that the ultimate truth lies in how people respond, and that is something that we each have as our own very real choice. That is the part that is under our direct control. As a jazz musician, I think of it like this. To paraphrase Miles Davis, a note played is only ever wrong based on the notes that come after it. I don't mean to trivialize this issue, but how people respond to my comment, and then how I respond to their response is central to the issue.
It is just as important, however to be mindful of where we draw the line in holding someone responsible for someone else's response. Therein lies the difficulty in avoiding the very real slippery slope that constantly threatens the very notion of freedom of speech.
Hi Kevin,
I appreciate seeing this comment - no apologies necessary for not responding - this is your substack and you have every right to decide when you're done with a conversation.
I whole-heartedly agree that freedom of speech is important and people can say whatever they want - whether or not it's correct or others agree with them.
But when you say that your post was part of the solution since "more discussion lead[s] to greater mutual understanding", I argue that what this post (which you yourself described as "incendiary") sparked was not a thoughtful discussion, but instead not unreasonable emotion-based reactions.
To use your music analogy, I think the problem was that your post was not a musical note that was part of a melodic exploration. It was the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard - a reasonable reaction to this type of sound is to tell the person to stop doing that because the screech is unpleasant and bothers the listeners.
While a lot of points you bring up (like about the importance of free speech, the importance of discussion and dialogue, etc.) are very valid, I feel like you keep being very vague about your actual post. You say you were "careless" in your word choice and your "comment was misconstrued". Then please do share what you think you should have said instead in your post if you had used precise and deliberate language with the intention of sparking discussion leading to greater mutual understanding.
I thought that was what I did in my post. I offered two options and said at the end that it might have gotten a different response had a gone with the latter instead of what I wrote.
Hi Kevin,
Seeing this newsletter post, I was surprised that you were interested in continuing a conversation on this topic, then intrigued by the first half as I read through your points, and then disappointed by the conclusions you reached.
Since you say you promote “open and honest discussion”, here are my challenges:
“A rational response would be to break down the meaning of the words and then to consider all of the possible ways one might react to the message in order to attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it.”
It feels like you’re confusing the ideas of “rational” vs “logical”. One could, of course, approach your original post as if it were a mathematical logic problem, in which case your meaning of “supremacy as a concept of one group over another is wrong in all cases” is very clear. However, is it rational for a reader to assume that the writer is posting a sort of mathematical symmetric property? I would argue that it’s more rational to apply a basic reading comprehension approach that would (as you say), “attempt to discern the intentions and meaning behind it”.
“Having already braced for danger…”
I think you did a good job in this paragraph of capturing a typical or expected thought process of someone reading the post.
“The comparison is between two different implementations of the ideology of supremacy defined here as the belief in the superiority of one particular group over another. In this context, the adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant to the actual intended meaning of the sentence.”
If your adjectives of “Jewish” and “white” are completely irrelevant, then why use them? You yourself say that the “preface warns the reader than the post could be controversial” – you clearly wanted to say something provocative. Could you explain why decided to choose “Jewish” as your “irrelevant” example? For instance, why didn’t you choose “Mormon” or “Chinese”?
Coming back to the idea of a rational response – I agree that a rational response would “attempt to discern the intentions and meaning”, which I argue means looking at this in a real-world context. This was a real post that you made, not a theoretical logic exercise. Let’s image a reader (let’s call them Reader A) who stumbles across your post. For argument’s sake, let’s say Reader A is someone familiar with Jewish historical and current events and culture. Reader A is aware that there’s been a dramatic rise in antisemitic rhetoric and actions over the last year and a half, picks up on the fact that (as you later acknowledged in a comment on your social media post) the “specific phrase ‘Jewish Supremacy’ has been used in the past by white supremacists in an antisemitic way”, and sees that this is a stand-alone post that’s apropos of nothing and not part of any ongoing conversation you were having on social media. Based on these observations, it’s perfectly rational for Reader A to assume that the intention was to criticize Jews. Your post did not provide any additional context to remove any concerns of antisemitism.
Then let’s imagine two other readers – Reader B and Reader C. Reader B doesn’t know much about Jews. Reader B glances at your post comparing Jewish supremacy and white supremacy and may think, “Huh, I didn’t know Jewish supremacy was a thing. It sounds like it’s as big a problem as white supremacy. Maybe there’s something to that nonsense my family member was spouting about Jews trying to take over the world [one of the most wide-spread conspiracy theories].”
Reader C is someone who already has a negative opinion about Jews (about 1 in 4 Americans endorse anti-Jewish tropes). Reader C sees your post and is happy to see someone who shares their viewpoint.
I think you would agree that the outcomes of Reader A, Reader B, and Reader C seeing your post are all negative.
It seems like you’re claiming you were writing for an imaginary Reader D who should have treated it as the mathematical logic problem I referred to earlier. Do you think it’s rational to assume a social media post will only be seen and reacted to by people like Reader D?
“The bogus reaction can come from several motivations. The person reacting may have a grudge against the writer or generally just dislike them for whatever reason. They may simply be one of the many online trolls who just like to cause mayhem and get a rise out of people. Most often, however, they come from political and/or ideological motivations. They harbor bogus grudges.”
I have several disagreements with your commentary on bogus or disingenuous reactions.
Firstly, I agree with you that some of the reactions from your political opponents were probably “bogus”. I think it’s pretty typical for politicians to take advantage of their opponents’ mistakes to further their own agenda, so I’m not surprised.
Secondly, yes, online trolls who thrive on creating chaos and drama definitely exist. However, I think most of the responses you classified as “bogus” are actually “rational” but using “emotional” language. While your original post did get a large number of comments (compared to most of your other recent posts) – there were only 7 distinct individuals who actually commented (apart from yourself). It seems that all of the commentors are local residents, so none of them should be categorized as online trolls. I’ve already explained how the language of your post raised a very realistic specter of antisemitism. So it is perfectly reasonable for people to have an emotional, negative response when they see an elected town official making such a statement.
“It would admit to agreeing with the misrepresentations of it being hateful or antisemitic.”
I do believe you when you say that the way it was interpreted was not your intention and that you did not intend for it to be “hateful”. But, however unintentional, the post you wrote was antisemitic. I believe that you would not knowingly act in an antisemitic way. But we are all human and all have foibles and unconscious biases and make mistakes. None of us are perfect and none of us are aware of every single phrase that has roots steeped in bigotry. All we can do is listen, learn, and try to do better next time.
To be honest, I don’t think you wrote your post assuming all readers would interpret it like Reader D. Because if you had, that would have been a meaningless post. You could have just as well said, “Harassment by any group over another is equally wrong no matter how the group is defined whether they be white, black [n.b. it’s recommended to capitalize Black when referring to people], Asian, Hispanic, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish” or “Murder is bad” or “You shouldn’t drink and drive”. Why would you say “many may find incendiary” if all you meant was “all people hav[e] equal value and deserv[e] equal respect” (from your comment on another of your Facebook posts)? What’s incendiary about that statement?
I believe that you had something else you wanted to say but thought cloaking it in the language you did would make it more palatable. I would bet that you had an opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but decided to be vague about it and refer to Jews in general instead. If you want to keep going down this path, rather than thoughtfully considering how you got to this point, I challenge you to write what you actually wanted to say, rather than a “pithy” one-liner or framing yourself as a “victim of cancel culture”.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You raise some very good points and I agree with much of your analysis. I have been asking myself whether I really was thinking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in some way. I have also been thinking about addressing that subject more directly, as I certainly do have a viewpoint as many people do. I will consider accepting your challenge and try to live up to it. Thanks again.