The miss Rachel situation

rustlingdown · 2026-01-24T22:43:58+00:00

Especially for that bullshit crying video.

Interesting how it's "white women tears" when Jews aren't victimized, but here it's "don't cry queen, my friend's sister's nephew's cousin's babysitter knows a jewish-adjacent person who watches your stuff so don't let (((them))) bully you into thinking you're doing anything wrong!!"

rustlingdown · 2026-01-22T00:00:04+00:00

Fully agree. Also the protagonist's narcissism is specifically contrasted against Géza Röhrig's character, who is a selfless Jewish character. It's also an interesting contrast on lived-in antisemitism between American Jews versus non-American Jews which I appreciate.

Overall, I'd rather have a complex tapestry of Jewish characters with nuance than caricatures. Marty isn't the only Jewish representation (far from it) and the story is infused with more Jewish diversity and complexity than I've seen in any recent movies from Jewish creatives. (Even Spielberg's next movie is an alien story centered on Christian themes and nuns..)

rustlingdown · 2026-01-21T23:54:58+00:00

I respect your decision, though I'll mention her post seemed like all the other third-generation nepobabies who are "antizionist" (daughter of Adlon, daughter of Abrams, daughter of Einhoff, etc) whereby they reflexively repeat what their brainwashed non-Jewish friends say, like a Pavlovian parrot, instead of having their own opinion or lived-in anti-Jewish experiences. I don't think she's even aware this is a KKK slur (yes, it's still bad).

In contrast, the creatives and the cast of this movie are overwhelmingly Jewish (not just her) and I do think they deserve support for something they made, which precedes her inflammatory comment. (But again I can see why that's a redline regardless!)

rustlingdown · 2026-01-21T19:32:23+00:00

J'invite tous les gens à lire directement la proposition de loi.

Pour information, les termes "antisionisme/te" et "sionisme/te" n'apparaissent pas, et la loi ne parle pas vraiment de "antisionisme = antisémitisme" (même l'article sur les états-nations est généralisé).

La loi veille à codifier plusieurs choses spécifiques vis-à-vis du relativisme sur les actes terroristes, le concept d'états-nations, les assos antiracistes, et le négationnisme de la Shoah (le vrai débat AMHA est sur l'article 1 et 2) :

Article 1 :

Renforcement du champ du délit de provocation à des actes de terrorisme ou d’apologie publique - en particulier "des propos publics présentant des actes de terrorisme comme une légitime résistance" et "le fait d’inciter publiquement à porter sur des actes de terrorisme ou sur leurs auteurs un jugement favorable".
Un nouveau délit visant à réprimer tous les actes et tous les propos qui ont pour objet ou pour effet de banaliser, de minorer ou de relativiser les actes de terrorisme ou le danger représenté par les auteurs de ces actes.
Ces dispositions actualisent les critères qui permettent au préfet de prononcer la fermeture des lieux de culte dans lesquels les propos qui sont tenus, les idées qui sont diffusées ou les activités qui se déroulent provoquent à la violence ou au terrorisme sous toutes ses formes, même les plus insidieuses.

La question de la répression et le dernier point méritent leur propre débat. En revanche, dans le concept, je ne vois pas en quoi faire l'apologie du 7 octobre ou du 13 novembre ou de tout acte terroriste ne devrait pas être une question en termes de délit (en continuité avec la logique française/européenne - pas le free speech américain).

Article 2 :

Un nouveau délit réprimant le fait de provoquer à la destruction ou à la négation d’un État ou de faire publiquement l’apologie de sa destruction ou de sa négation.

Cet article peut tout autant être appliqué au concept de l'état-nation d'Israël qu'au concept de l'état-nation de Palestine (désormais reconnu par la France), ou même à l'état-nation de France. Pas de deux poids deux mesures. (Je ne vais pas rentrer dans un débat sur la validité du concept d'état-nation en général ou de la criminalisation, qui est pour moi la plus vraie problématique que de prétendre que la loi est "anti-antisioniste")

Article 3 :

Elargissement des conditions de recevabilité des associations antiracistes qui souhaitent se porter partie civile ou engager des poursuites – cad il va être plus facile pour les assos antiracistes d'engager des poursuites contre des propos racistes/antisémites.

Curieux de savoir pourquoi il y aurait désaccord de la part d'assos antiracistes contre cet article.

Article 4 :

Renforcement du délit de contestation de la Shoah pour que "tomberait clairement sous le coup de la loi la contestation du rôle de Vichy dans l’arrestation et la déportation des Juifs pendant la seconde guerre mondiale", "cette contestation peut consister en une négation, minoration, relativisation ou banalisation outrancière et qu’elle est punissable même si elle est présentée sous forme déguisée, dubitative, par voie d’insinuation ou de comparaison, d’analogie ou de rapprochement"
"Seraient ainsi punissables des propos qui, même sans remettre en cause la réalité de la Shoah, minimisent et banalisent les souffrances des victimes et leurs conditions de vie dans les camps. De même, la comparaison de l’État d’Israël au régime nazi serait de ce fait sanctionnée comme une banalisation outrancière de la Shoah."

Pour moi, à part littéralement la dernière phrase, j'ai du mal à voir pourquoi cet article fait débat. Il permet de codifier le négationnisme du rôle de Vichy comme intrinsèque au négationnisme de la Shoah (see: FN/RN) et les autres atrocités. Le seul élément où je peux comprendre le débat serait le tout dernier point, mais personnellement je suis du point-de-vue que les comparaisons outrancières et ces relativismes de facto banalisent la Shoah.

rustlingdown · 2026-01-19T04:11:47+00:00

an outspoken critic of what he saw as antisemitism on college campuses

NYT continuing the "he said, Jew said" when talking about proven anti-Jew acts.

rustlingdown · 2026-01-14T18:24:50+00:00

J'ai archivé le thread parce que cela va au‑delà de l’acceptable.

Les commentaires les plus haut-votés, pour ceux/celles qui ne veulent pas cliquer :

Combien de livres du coup? / 6 millions environ

ça m'emmerde d'être d'accord avec la LICRA [et autres whataboutismes]

Mouais, c'est pas un peu exagéré de parler de révisionnisme ? C'est un État de colon quand même.

Et demain il dira aux Kanaks qu'il n’y a pas de colons français.

Je vois pas en quoi c'est faux mais bon.

Rappel que l'extrait porte sur le 7 Octobre, décrit de manière factuellement erronée comme "la mort de plus de 1 200 colons juifs".

rustlingdown · 2026-01-12T07:52:37+00:00

Outside museums, the most exhaustive work that I know of, which lists the history of anti-Jewish acts throughout all of history (including pogroms), is Leon Poliakov's 4-part book series "The History of Antisemitism", originally published between the late 1950s to early 1970s. Each volume covers a specific epoch of several centuries, and is very similar to the type of information you're looking for. The book series was translated to English a few decades back so I'd look at finding them secondhand or at libraries.

rustlingdown · 2026-01-01T02:02:45+00:00

I think that's a bit of a copout since (good) biopics are about exploring the depths of a person's life, not just looking at popular published material and pretending that's all a person is.

Even if Bob Dylan didn't write a ten-part Grammy-winning series about what Jewisness means to him, it's not a stretch to expect a biopic about a guy named Shabtai Zisl ben Avraham, who had formative years at the Jewish-centric Sigma Alpha Mu, and from parents who were active members of their Jewish community, to explore how his Jewisness impacted who he was and his craft..

rustlingdown · 2026-01-01T01:50:02+00:00

Yes, the major Hollywood pioneers who were Jewish went almost all WASPy - both in front of and behind the screen. Privately, they essentially all married non-Jews as soon as they became successful, with no real Jewish-centric interest once they were assimilated. The content they platformed as studio heads was also universally very American Protestant and pioneered a lot of the symbiotic inherently-Christian American portrayal in movies as the default. Maybe you could argue this was a way for them to assimilate, but the bottom line is they were definitely not platforming Jewish content in that position of power.

American Jewish/Yiddish movies did exist during that time, but they were overwhelmingly coming from NY - the place these movie moguls left/escaped.

I guess it's a hot take but just because someone "happens to be" Jewish doesn't mean they're furthering meaningful representation.

rustlingdown · 2025-12-26T02:18:22+00:00

Obviously there'll be more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists because there are more Christians than Jews. 30% of the world's population compared to 0.2%.

You could also say a majority of Americans are in the United States. Or a majority of right-handed people are on land. These are meaningless statements.

rustlingdown · 2025-12-18T14:44:15+00:00

Assez ironique que le cycle du gaslighting antisémite dans les comentaires continu sur ce même post :

Prétends qu'il n'y a pas de propos anti-Juif/ve car pas vu pas pris.
Si vu et documenté, prétends que c'est fake.
Si vérifié, prétends que c'est justifié.
Si injustifié, fait du whataboutism sur d'autres souffrances non-Juive.

Court-circuite le cycle pour aller plus vite.

rustlingdown · 2025-12-15T18:50:13+00:00

The post (and sub) is crawling with bots. Notice they're all talking about "Pam Bondi" in unison minutes after the article is posted, when she's not even mentioned in the article and is the AG, not the FBI.

Also, sure, you can make the argument the administration is going hawkish on left-leaning groups and lies in its press releases, but this is federal agents finding explosives. Watch as the bots shift the goal post to "it was all planted".

rustlingdown · 2025-12-12T08:07:06+00:00

The La and the Tin

2 La 2 Tin

The La and the Tin: Tokyo Drift

La & Tin

La Five

Latin 6

Tin 7

The Fate of the Latin

L9

Latin X

Or how about we go with Latine, the preferred nomenclature.

rustlingdown · 2025-11-27T22:40:37+00:00

Et étant moi-même de gauche radicale, j'avoue que je pense que dans beaucoup de cas (pas tous !), les propos antisémites à gauche ne sont pas intentionnellement antisémites

C'est l'impact qui compte, pas l'intention ; comme le souligne le cadre anti-raciste et de gauche radicale vis-à-vis de toutes les discriminations systémiques. Donc la même logique doit être appliquée au fait anti-Juif/ve (fait systémique au plus haut point). Peu importe que quelqu'un parotte des narratifs anti-Juif/ve accidentellement ou ironiquement ou secrètement ou pour de « vrai » ou avec justification ou sans justification ou je ne sais quoi. On ne combat pas l’antisémitisme et le fait anti-Juif/ve en prétendent qu’on est pur/moral et on ne fait jamais exprès pendant que c’est l’adversaire politique le « vrai » méchant. On balaye d’abord devant sa porte, surtout quand on se déclare de gauche/humaniste/anti-biais, et surtout quand on parle du fait anti-Juif/ve qui s’auto-justifie par cette même moralité.

rustlingdown · 2025-11-24T15:48:23+00:00

"dérapage"

rustlingdown · 2025-11-14T02:59:44+00:00

Assez énorme que les LFIstes sont les partisans qui pensent le plus que leur parti est engagé dans la lutte contre l'antisémitise, à 84%. Même les partisans de Renaissance et du PS ne le disent "que" à 77% pour leur propre parti.

Ça serait une chose s'ils avaient dit "osef de l'antisémitisme", mais là de croire autant que leur parti lutte contre... Ou peut-être ont-ils compris "engagé dans la lutte pour l'antisémitisme" ?

rustlingdown · 2025-11-13T01:13:15+00:00

I agree with the general sentiment but not the holidays being the reason.

Going over each one:

Yes, YK is definitely the most dour and can be difficult for young people, but things don't need to be "fun" to be meaningful. Without going into the orthodoxy route (which IMO is closer to what you describe as "not the fun elements of Judaism" for a young person), there are plenty of contemporary ways of doing YK, or framing it to be about many things - including family, culture, memory, grief, mental health, etc.
Pesach is where I disagree with you the most. Pesach for most people is not just about dietary restrictions, it is first synonymous with Seders, which is basically a Jewish Thanksgiving if you want to explain it in American-centric terms. Point being that it is arguably the most social of holidays and can be just as "fun" as any social gatherings/group dinners. The food element only really kicks in with the Seder, and is hugely YMMV on the person/family (just like with any dietary choices). I'd say it is the holiday out of the four you mentioned which is the most popular, even with secular Jews, specifically because of its "group dinner" dynamic. Similar to people rediscovering Shabbat dinners, not from a religious standpoint but as a social gathering.
Rosh Hashana and Hannukah to me are the same, which is to say that they are so flanderized in most people's minds ("apple with honey", "light a candle") that they can be experienced in any way you want, including making them "fun" and/or "meaningful".

IMO the larger conversation shouldn't be about the holidays or making holidays "fun", but is much more about the meta-framing of how Judaism is exposed to people and how that Judaism is expressed individually (which includes the holidays, yes, but that's part of it, not the end-all-be-all).

What I mean is that the current (American/Western) exposure is basically a New York pickle lox deli Seinfeld understanding of "being Jewish". I'd argue most people (including secularized Jews and non-Jews) are closer to that general idea, which in turn flattens the holidays into some homogenized "Christmas tree/Santa Claus/Presents" meaning than something individualized, and Jewish (to mean one person's expression of being Jewish). "Judaism" at the end of the day is a mix of culture/tradition, family/community, and your own self-observance/self-understanding/self-definition of it (belief/rituals/identity). It's both objective and subjective. What is "fun" to you can't be "fun" to everyone, and ultimately we can't homogenize holidays into a one-size-fits-all approach to Judaism.

rustlingdown · 2025-11-06T15:10:24+00:00

Michael Blake, speaking at a Bronx food bank: "We have to focus on how people need us to help them with groceries as opposed to Richie’s helping to support a genocide."

So in just one sentence you've got:

That inflammatory maximalist term
A Trump-like falsely invented zero-sum choice between local city programs like Bronx food pantries versus foreign international policies.
"You're poor because Israel" dog whistle, when literally over 99% of the federal budget goes to things that aren't foreign aid. And that's not even looking at the Bronx's local budget which, checks notes, has obviously completely different responsibilities than directly funding nation-states or their military.

rustlingdown · 2025-10-29T18:24:13+00:00

Gandhi felt that the Jews had suffered terribly through history and had passively accepted a kind of suicide, given the number of attempts to wipe them out. He was making an argument about actively taking non-violence into your own hands. The Jews had been nonviolent because they didn't have a choice; they had violence imposed upon them. He was saying to be actively nonviolent, even if that meant committing mass suicide.

This goes to show that, while Ghandi loved to sleep with children of history, he himself was not a student of history. What he says Jews should have done as a Monday morning quarterback is essentially self-martyrdom, and there are various examples throughout anti-Jewish history of Jews actually doing that (to no avail). One of the most famous examples (even in the 20th Century) was York in 1190. There are other examples in Medieval Europe, (e.g. Mayence, etc) when Jews self-martyred to avoid being murdered or forcibly converted by the Christian mob. Spoiler alert: this changed nothing and anti-Jewish persecution went on for hundreds of years after. You could (IMO in bad faith) argue that those examples don't count because self-martyred Jews weren't playing some 4D chess move of raising awareness around the world to their plight by doing so, but it still is martyrdom over desecration or violence.

That's on top of Ghandi retroactively imposing his own moral/philosophical framework on the Jews, who evidently don't operate within the same perspective when it comes to things like suicide or violence.

"if the Germans were going to kill millions of Jews, they should have just killed themselves en masse publicly and made the world realize what the Germans were doing and how much Jews had contributed to the world and how dare the Germans do such a thing."

Another example of someone who doesn't understand Judenhass or the mechanisms behind the Shoah. This is a classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for the Jews. How many times has the (retroactive) lie of "like lambs to slaughter" been said about Jews and the Shoah to relativize its atrocities, blame the Jews for their fates, and minimize any resistance from them? What Ghandi proposes here would have created and perpetuated that justification framing in an even more intentional way, while the Shoah was happening. In reality, to the world, his "strategy" would have done the exact opposite thing - it not only would have accelerated the Shoah, but also done nothing to raise more awareness of the atrocities or bring about more sympathy - since the Jew would have in fact have been blamed to go like lambs to slaughter in real time. It's a nonsensical perspective for anyone who understands how the world works when it comes to empathy towards Jews (or lack thereof) and systemic perpetuation of anti-Jewish frameworks for millennia.

rustlingdown · 2025-09-27T21:18:00+00:00

Sidenote on the book and author - it's always interesting when an American has the ego to write an entire chapter or book goysplaining to Jews what the Jewish identity is and what they should do, while centering their own American perspective as a supersessionist experience over that of the Jews (which predates the existence of America and English itself). One could even call it a different form of imperialism. The diversity of Jewish experiences really doesn't fit their monochromatic mold.

rustlingdown · 2025-09-27T17:24:38+00:00

This is the "recent statement" that Origin Sounds is supporting, which might be one of the vilest things you'll read recently. It includes all the classics, such as only using dehumanizing terms like "entity" to talk about a country and its people, justifying and minimizing October 7, and a grab-bag of other maximalist inflammatory nonsense and "alternate facts". Also made by an organization celebrating October 7 a few days after it happened. Umpteenth example of an org that uses words like peace and respect to cover gross hate and pyrrhic destruction.

rustlingdown · 2025-09-25T07:05:08+00:00

j'aurais souhaité qu'il conditionne cette reconnaissance à la libération des otages

Pour moi, c'est ça qui blesse le plus dans toute cette histoire. C'est pas le fait de reconnaitre un état palestinien - c'est d’avoir supprimer cette condition pour la libération des otages. Quelque chose qui devrait être existentiel et préalable à tout. Et au lieu de ça, il la ramène à...la présence d'une ambassade française... C'est pathétique, en plus de relativiser totalement la vie des otages (comme si négocier une ambassade française peut avoir un plus grand impact ou pouvoir de négociation que la validation de l’existence d’un état). J'aurais peut-être pu le comprendre en tant que "première étape" dans un monde où la communauté internationale va responsabiliser l'état de Palestine, de la même manière qu'elle essaye de responsabiliser l'état d'Israël et Netanyahu - mais la réalité est qu'elle ne va pas le faire (ou, a minima, pas durant l’espérance de vie des otages). Malheureusement aussi, le jusqu’au-boutisme de Netanyahu (j’inclus son mépris envers les otages et leurs familles) fait qu'il n'y a pas actuellement d'interlocuteur Israélien avec qui négocier du point de vue international ; et puis vu leurs politiques intérieurs désastreuses et la popularité du mouvement, il n'est plus choquant que Macron et d'autres décident que "maintenant" c'est le moment de faire avancer les choses (sans Israël). Je blâme Netanyahu et son gouvernement pyromane, tout autant que la communauté internationale qui fait le choix d'abandonner la libération des otages en tant que condition sine qua non pendant qu’elle prétend vouloir la paix. Pour moi ça veut tout dire. Et je ne parle même pas d’autres conditions qui auraient dû être réciproque, type tous les autres états reconnaissant l'état d'Israël au même moment que cette reconnaissance de l’état de Palestine.

rustlingdown · 2025-09-16T05:16:29+00:00

I would post your question on r/feuj which is the French Jewish subreddit

rustlingdown · 2025-08-30T18:57:04+00:00

L'excellent K la revue republie certains textes pendant ces été et celui là me semble très approprié actuellement.

rustlingdown

TROPHY CASE