Kevin Myers gets the boot

Good to see the Irish Jewish representative council intervene to defend Kevin Myers . They actually have read his work on Israel and the Nazi genocide over the years. Details on the RTE website.

But he never said "all". It's very rare that anybody makes a claim about every member of any group-- he even uses the word "generally". I don't understand why this objection is so common. Nobody ever says all women are more nurturing than all men, that all Muslims are terrorists, that all fatherless children become delinquents, that all Russians are alcoholics, etc....well, very rarely does anybody make such a total claim, and yet they are treated as though they do.

He wrote: "Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity."

And I'm not even defending the comment. I'm just saying it's a pretty ordinary case of stereotyping. People say much worse things about Americans all the time.

I understand your objection, and the sensitivity of the subject, but I would ask: What generalization can be legitimately made about the Jews? And when will it be safe to talk about the Jewish people in the way we don't hesitate to talk about every other people? Are only Jewish comedians allowed to do this?

To me, this controversy isn't about anti-semitism, it's about political correctness. And I'm not accusing you of political correctness at all, I'm just saying it feeds into the phenomenon.

Should a white person be tongue-tied about black people because of slavery and colonialism?

Should a man be tongue-tied about women because of rape and all the disenfranchisement of women in the past and present?

Should heterosexuals be tongue-tied about homosexuals because of the pink triangle and so forth?

I'm not going to go down that road. I think we should deal with every utterance on the ground of what it actually says, rather than its implications, echoes, resonances, associations, implications, parallels, etc. That way lies "hate speech" and ever-increasing taboos.

I'm not at all trying to trivialize the history of anti-semitism in Christendom and the West...but I even type those words reluctantly, since I don't think we should have to make such disclaimers. I'll just say, I do understand your position and the special sensitivity of anti-semitism.

When have people ever been silent about Jews?

And talking about specific issues such as gay marriage is very different to making generalisations about specific races and peoples, particularly when as is the case with the Jews they are almost invariably 100% negative. What Myers *actually* said was that Jews are cunning with money and are always trying to maximise their wealth, even though he tried to use a weak disguise in saying it.

"I think we should deal with every utterance on the ground of what it actually says, rather than its implications, echoes, resonances, associations, implications, parallels, etc."

I'm afraid that's utterly naive, every utterance carries resonances, traces, echoes, implications etc. Language exists only in a shared historical and cultural context. And when it comes to Jews we usually know what that context is.

But the same arguments could be made by any interest group, or on behalf of any interest group.

For instance, during the marriage referendum, every argument that could be made in favour of traditional marriage, the complementarity of the sexes, the upbringing of children, etc. could be met with the claim: "You are just rationalising homophobia". And indeed, it was. You see a crucial distinction here, and I do respect that, but I just don't see it. And of course the same parallel could be made to so many other debates, where accusations of prejudice and "dog-whistling" are used by one side. I think such claims should be inadmissable.

I don't think anti-semitism is quite as rampant as you claim, and I do think an artificial scrupulosity has prevailed when it comes to discussion of Jewish subjects, in the West, for decades now. For instance, can you think of a Jewish villain or an original fictional character who is Jewish, and who is negatively portrayed, in any popular culture work of the last fifty years? I can't. Even the portrayal of the Ferengi in Star Trek, space merchants who are portrayed as greedy and unethical, was denounced for being anti-semitic! (I say "original" because I'm not talking about Fagin, Shylock, etc.)

What I am not saying is that there is not a strong strain of anti-semitism in the West. I know there is. Although I agree with the Alt Right about many things, I don't agree with the rampant anti-semitism of that movement. But I don't see what benefit suppressing such views (or any views) has. It doesn't make them go away. And I don't think Kevin Myers is anti-semitic, by the way.

Well, I don't agree with him-- I don't think he should have been sacked.

I don't think there's a crucial distinction between race and any other interest group in this regard. Why would there be? Race, sex, sexuality, religion, gender identity-- each one is capable of being made a sacred cow because of mistreatment, perceived or real, in the past or present. Arguments about what is innate and what is not could go on forever and are not obviously relevant.