Regarding the original post...

Often times, it can be difficult to determine if a particular statement is pulled from an antisemetic source or philosemitic source. This causes some to intellectually vapor lock and refuse to confront the text...or the reasons why such diametrically opposed sources may write indistinguishable content.

********************

A timely essay by Zman gets to the general case of such and the response:
Originally Posted by http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=19184
...how it uses rhetoric to shape the debate in order to eliminate the need for debate. They are not in the habit of debating their ideas and fads, mostly because they don’t want to debate those things. It is a soft-authoritarianism where they seek to shame and cajole their opposition out of the public square, so they don’t have to debate them.


Zman writes of the particular case of Conservative, Inc. vs the Groypers, but hte general case applies to a great many topics our ruling class has determined beyond debate.

Regards,

deadlift_dude
“The very first essential for success is a perpetually constant and regular employment of violence.”
----Fred Rogers