People are people

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are structurally the same.

“Are the polemicists anti-Semites?” the ADL report asks, and answers, quite rightly, “by and large, yes” (they are clearly leaving themselves some wiggle room on the issue of Israel Shahak, who is cited in the report but is almost certainly not vulnerable to such an accusation). It cites as tell-tale signs of bigotry and malevolence, their systematic distortions of the ancient texts, always in the direction of portraying Judaism negatively, their lack of interest in good-faith efforts to understand contemporary Judaism from contemporary Jews, and their dismissal of any voices opposing their own, [which] suggests that their goal in reading ancient rabbinic literature is to produce the Frankenstein version of Judaism that they invariably claim to have uncovered.

In just this manner, Islamophobes dismiss what contemporary and mainstream Muslims say their faith means to them and systematically misrepresent the common understanding of complex ancient texts written in both a language and a style very foreign to the present-day American manner of expression. They too dismiss any voices other than their own, such as renowned academic experts on Islam, even non-Muslims scholars and experts, and denounce them as “apologists” and supporters of extremism. In these cases too, it is clear to any impartial observer that the goal is in no way a good-faith effort to examine honestly what Muslims believe but rather to create “the Frankenstein version of Islam.”

Link thanks to David Schraub at Alas, a Blog.

People are people

Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are structurally the same.

“Are the polemicists anti-Semites?” the ADL report asks, and answers, quite rightly, “by and large, yes” (they are clearly leaving themselves some wiggle room on the issue of Israel Shahak, who is cited in the report but is almost certainly not vulnerable to such an accusation). It cites as tell-tale signs of bigotry and malevolence, their systematic distortions of the ancient texts, always in the direction of portraying Judaism negatively, their lack of interest in good-faith efforts to understand contemporary Judaism from contemporary Jews, and their dismissal of any voices opposing their own, [which] suggests that their goal in reading ancient rabbinic literature is to produce the Frankenstein version of Judaism that they invariably claim to have uncovered.

In just this manner, Islamophobes dismiss what contemporary and mainstream Muslims say their faith means to them and systematically misrepresent the common understanding of complex ancient texts written in both a language and a style very foreign to the present-day American manner of expression. They too dismiss any voices other than their own, such as renowned academic experts on Islam, even non-Muslims scholars and experts, and denounce them as “apologists” and supporters of extremism. In these cases too, it is clear to any impartial observer that the goal is in no way a good-faith effort to examine honestly what Muslims believe but rather to create “the Frankenstein version of Islam.”

Link thanks to David Schraub at Alas, a Blog.

About explaining

I've just realized that I believe a bunch of things about explaining and I'm not sure how many of them are true, so I'm tossing the matter to you guys.

I believe I'm fairly good at explaining, partly because I'm good at laying things out logically, but mostly because I'm actually able to believe that other people don't understand things just because I do. (Let me know if you think I'm kidding myself about this.)

I believe most people are fairly bad at explaining because they don't imagine not understanding the same things they understand.

I believe, on no strong evidence, that people who are bad at explaining would find it difficult to learn how to be good at explaining. In any case, I can't see how to explain the fundamental leap of really believing that people don't understand something-- they aren't just being perverse.

I realize there might be some contradictions between the second paragraph and the fourth.

About explaining

I've just realized that I believe a bunch of things about explaining and I'm not sure how many of them are true, so I'm tossing the matter to you guys.

I believe I'm fairly good at explaining, partly because I'm good at laying things out logically, but mostly because I'm actually able to believe that other people don't understand things just because I do. (Let me know if you think I'm kidding myself about this.)

I believe most people are fairly bad at explaining because they don't imagine not understanding the same things they understand.

I believe, on no strong evidence, that people who are bad at explaining would find it difficult to learn how to be good at explaining. In any case, I can't see how to explain the fundamental leap of really believing that people don't understand something-- they aren't just being perverse.

I realize there might be some contradictions between the second paragraph and the fourth.