Friday, September 5, 2008

Chabad - Every criticism is perceived as a vile insult

Arthur said...
Lazera said: "To my knowledge,no one on this blog has compared the LLR to Hitler OR EVEN USED LANGUAGE THAT IS SlIGHTLY SIMILAR
Then your knowledge is somewhat limited
"His opinions on Chabad Torah, as they are not within the realm of Torah, are fine"
This is of course eloquent praise of Chabad Torah.

-----------------
Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
[Lazera said:] "To my knowledge, no one on this blog has compared"
there have been comments of similar tone against the Rebbe that I have no intention of reposting.
==========================
There seems to be a tremendous loss of proportionality in the above comments. Any criticism of Chabbad or the L Rebbe qualifies as being the same as calling a widely respected godol equivalent to Hitler!? Rabbi Oliver you can send what you think are equivalent insults to the Rebbe to me privately. As it stands your comment is outrageous. You are saying that your understanding of the the tone of the criticism is the same as those filthy words?!

If you really believe what you are saying then you are crazy to keep participating on this blog and I take your comments as a personal insult - as you obviously intended.

I have not seen any comments posted on this blog regarding the L Rebbe that is anyway comparable. Similarly Arthur's example is way off base.

Perhaps both of you simple don't recall who Hitler was.

11 comments :

  1. Years ago when discussion boards were all the rage, I recall belonging to one local group that had a few "nudniks" who like posting inflammatory material (yes, I was one of them).
    There was the predictable backlash and complaining of how "flaming" was ruining the board. So I suggested something that didn't seem so radical to me: You see my name in your in-box, you know you don't like my comments, so hit the delete button and avoid the aggravation.
    My own personal understanding has always been: if you don't like a blog, don't bother commenting on it. After all, it's a waste of time and annoys the others who do like it. You won't change their minds so what are you accomplishing?
    What, because Daat Torah says something you don't like, you HAVE to put in your 10 cents worth?
    I think that some people here should be reminded that visiting this, or any blog, is voluntary. To criticize its contents, especially when they're non-inflammatory except in the eyes of a few, is like walking into someone's home and yelling at him that you don't like the colour of his sofa or where he put that vase.

    In summary, lives are on sale at Wal-mart this week. Please go and get one.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rabbi Eidensohn, you seem to have misunderstood me. My point was simply that extremely hateful language has been used on this thread, not merely criticism. I have said already that I don't mind respectful critism, but that's not what I was talking about. I didn't say that there was a specific comparison to Nazis. I agree that Arthur's language is inappropriate, and I certainly haven't used such language. As I said, I'm not interested in digging through the vile language in old posts that made me sick to my stomach the 1st time I read it.

    My point is, as mentioned earlier, that there is a double standard here, where harsh language in defense by Lubavitchers is regarded as obnoxious, totally unacceptable, and reflective upon the whole, whereas the vile language of those who speak against the Rebbe is considered acceptable and respected, by you as well. It's not the even-handed respectful dialogue that you have declared it your intention to promote.

    Since this is a misunderstanding on your part, I'd appreciate it if you would remove this post. Gut Shabbos.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't think Mr. Oliver is going to bury himself out of this mess. Every so-called obnoxious comment made about the rebbe was rooted in good faith criticsm of his myriad errors by decent people who could not handle your dishonest apologetics.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Arthur's langugage is not merely "inappropriate." As the knowledgable commenter on the offending thread noted, Arthur does not have a chelek in olam haba for his comment. His comment was at the the greatest height of evil a human being can aspire to.

    Showing where the rebbe went wrong in good faith is not the same as suggesting he is worse than Hitler. And such a comment, and the consistent escalation in arrogance he displayed as he refused to do teshuva show his true colors. No one ever did that against the rebbe. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Recipients and PublicitySeptember 5, 2008 at 1:40 PM

    Avoiding the "Hitler argument"!

    Meet the "Hitler argument" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_argument or "Godwin's law" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law and Reductio ad Hitlerum or "playing the Nazi card" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum c/o Wikipedia

    According to Wikipedia, the Hitler argument/Godwin's law: "Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies is an adage formulated by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states:

    "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the reductio ad Hitlerum form.

    The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages..."

    "Reductio ad Hitlerum" is even more complicated: "Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)" – is a modern informal fallacy in logic. It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.

    The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad" The argument carries emotional weight as rhetoric, since in most cultures anything relating to Hitler or Nazis is automatically condemned. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses. A subtype of the fallacy is the comparison of an opponent's propositions to the Holocaust. Other variants include comparisons to the Gestapo (the Nazi secret police), to fascism and totalitarianism more generally, and even more vaguely to terrorism. An inverted variant can take the form "Hitler was against X, therefore X must be good."..."

    Therefore for the purposes of the discussion on this blog about Chabd, the Rebbe and Rav Shach, the insertion of "Hitler" into heated discussions between frum Jews yet is really out of line.

    Wikipedia, which also hosts lots of heated debates between conflicting editors on its article's talk pages, has helped teach about the absurdity of such "Hitler" argumentation "techniques" and how useless and non-scholarly and illogical they are. It's a rule from in academic circles that is worthwhile noting and learning about for all concerned here, whether Chabad Chasidim trying to knock Rav Shach ztk"l for flimsy reasons or if it's non-Lubavitchers with a hatchet to grind against the last Lubavitcher Rebbe based on anti-Chabad outlooks, at ALL costs never to reach for the "Hitler" button because it NEVER solves any arguments but just drags down the conversation, usually stopping it, and making all normal human communication almost impossible.

    In discussions about the Holocaust or World War II or about Nazism or Fascism,or about Hitler y"sh himself, that is if you know something about those subjects, by all means feel free to insert the "Hitler" factor, otherwise KEEP IT OUT OF ALL OTHER DISCUSSIONS especially if those discussions are about otherwise respectable rabbis with tens of thousands of followers who have provably nothing to do with Hitler by any objective standard or by any stretch of the imagination.

    So again, take a close look at the Hitler argument/Godwin's law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_argument and at Reductio ad Hitlerum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum, read it and study it and let's all apply it to our dicussions on this blog and everywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To all my "accusers" above.Not at any time on this blog have I accused Rav Shach or anyone else of being worse then Hitler.So basically what this is all based upon is hearsay. The so called statement that I made on another blog is taken out of context, without quoting my entire post.I admit that it may have been over the top in this respect but was a response to quite a number of hateful virulent attacks against the Rebbi.
    As to the "kind individual" who tried "ever so kindly" to get me to do "teshuva" as Yosef Yitzchok claims, the individual damned me to the fires of hell like some fire and brimstone spouting evangelist minister.
    At no point did I condemn everyone who is not a Chabadnick.That part of YY'S accusation is purely a product of his imagination.The only area that I brought up was Rav Shachs Michtovim umaimorim in which Rav Shach attacks a number of Chosheve Yidden and the time he got up during a public convocation in front of the thousands of Yidden and maligned all of Lubavitch and specifically the Rebbe.
    I had no intention of even discussing these issues on this blog but since the "defenders of truth and justice" brought this up they left me no recourse except for the right of reply.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >>To all my "accusers" above.Not at any time on this blog have I accused Rav Shach or anyone else of being worse then Hitler.So basically what this is all based upon is hearsay.

    So this was an out of court statement made by you, the declarant, intended to prove the proof of the matter? This was not hearsay, but something you posted on another thread and refused to recant. To this day, you have refused to withdraw and do teshuva for what you have written. This means you still believe it.

    >>The so called statement that I made on another blog is taken out of context, without quoting my entire post.

    It is not a so called statement, but a statement which you made, and was quoted pretty much in full. It was not taken out of context.

    >>I admit that it may have been over the top in this respect but was a response to quite a number of hateful virulent attacks against the Rebbi.


    The obviously very learned and kind hearted contributor did not at any occassion make a disparaging remark against your rebbe. You, on the other hand, stated that the gadol hador is worse than Hitler among other disgusting remarks without provocation. Then, you refused to withdraw and engaged in leitzanus. To suggest you were "merely off the top" is in itself demonstrative of your lack of remorse for the evil you committed.

    >>As to the "kind individual" who tried "ever so kindly" to get me to do "teshuva" as Yosef Yitzchok claims, the individual damned me to the fires of hell like some fire and brimstone spouting evangelist minister.

    The extremely kind, patient and learned individual, who, for your own sake, exhorted you to do teshuva. As you continue to rant in your hate spewed posts and scoffed at the words of chazal, he wrote out one or two maamorei chazal about the consequences of mocking gedolei yisreol who are no longer among us. I have reviewed his posts and found him to be aghast at your impudence, but he was in no way remotely resembling an evanglelical minister. Your efforts to post something here about him which cannot match reality--even if you strech it--while lying about what YOU did in the post, makes you look even worse.

    >>I had no intention of even discussing these issues on this blog but since the "defenders of truth and justice" brought this up they left me no recourse except
    for the right of reply.

    And, unfortunately, you have demonstrated yourself as a prodoundly dishonest individual who has refused to take responsiblity for his aveiros, as an individual who would paint the innocent with accusations of malice and hate when the only hatred and malice is in your heart.

    The extremely kind poster wished for you to be zoche to do teshuva. I can only echo his thoughtful statement rooted in deep ahavas hashem, and remind you what the the rebbe himself said about people who lie about those things which everyone knows about . . .I am sure you know what I mean.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I, too, read the thread. The fellow who gently chastised you for your evil aveirah did so by use of chazal. In my opinion, he handeled himself like a tzadik, despite your insults and jokes. He demonstrated you never actually read Rav Shach's maamorim. Despite this fact, you kept on going. If you think Chazal were evangelical christians, you are even worse.

    The Gospel According to Arhur:

    Rav Shach--worse than Hitler.
    Chazal--evangelical Christians.

    What's next?

    ReplyDelete
  9. All this bashing of Arthur is beside the point. If people want to have some sort of meaningful dialogue with Lubavitcher Chassidim, and expect them not to get upset, then don't say nasty, hateful things against the Rebbe. Disagree if you must, but with respect. Then we have a basis for communication. The kind of utterly hateful language against the Rebbe that the blogmaster here has chosen to let through--and without any protest on his part, simply letting it through, almost always without comment, all apparently in the name of the (non-Jewish value) of freedom of speech--is indicative that he does not in fact seek to foster communication and understanding and reduce sinas chinom, as he has stated. (I wonder what the blogmaster thinks of whether the Chofetz Chaim would have approved of this.) This makes me think that my time here is indeed not spent productively.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver said...
    "This makes me think that my time here is indeed not spent productively."

    A more productive use of your time on this blog would be by responding substantively to the issues instead of always complaining about how mean everyone is to Lubavitchers.

    The fact is that, despite some failures, the dialogue on this blog has been, by and large, pretty substantive and focused on real issues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just to add to LazerA's well-reasoned, substantive remark: I have not found a single remark made by the LLR which can approach the evil of Arthur's remark concerning Rav Shach. Also, I have not found a single meaningful, substantive remark made by Mr. Olver to explain the problems addressed on thie blog. He bemoans "hatred" and "arrogance" quite nicely, but his overly sensitive disposition concerning the so called "leader of all Jews" is designed to do away with the issues and demand respect notwithstanding the myriad problems brought up in this and other blogs. Nearly every answer of his has more than tacitly suggested hatred on the part of the asker, and has done not only his Rabbonus more harm than good, but the rebbe he so poorly defends.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.