The Moral Importance of Freedom, Honesty, and Intelligence (Column 362)
Three concepts appear in the title of this column. I wanted to touch on them and their meanings against the backdrop of the present low point in which our public discourse finds itself. You may sense that these words are written from the depths of my heart and out of deep frustration with the situation. Perhaps this column, and the site as a whole, are my modest contribution to changing it.
On Freedom, Honesty, and Intelligence as Values
Freedom of expression is today accepted as a fundamental social value. On the personal level as well, people are expected nowadays to form and express their own opinions on the issues at hand. Truth‑telling and intellectual honesty are also, by all accounts, important values, though it’s hard to claim they trump every other value. In certain contexts there is a halakhic license to lie, and morally it is commonly thought there are circumstances in which lying is justified if the harm in telling the truth warrants it. Regarding intelligence the situation is different. It appears not to be a value at all, but perhaps an asset.[1] First, because intelligence is a fixed condition not in your control; the IQ with which you were endowed is an innate datum, regrettable or delightful as it may be. Beyond that, even if a person can improve their intelligence (with respect to thinking and analytic ability this is undoubtedly possible), I don’t think many would call it a moral value—perhaps a human or personal value, if at all.[2]
And despite all this, in recent days, as public discourse in Israel and around the world has been sliding into depths we haven’t known before—silencing, lies, inflammatory rhetoric, and positionality instead of arguments—I feel a very deep sense of helplessness. In its wake, a few further thoughts have occurred to me about the importance of public discourse and the infrastructure required to conduct it reasonably. The core of that infrastructure lies in the three things I listed above: freedom, intellectual honesty (truth), and intelligence. In the absence of any one of them, there is no chance for proper, reasonable public discourse, and this has dramatic implications for the realization of foundational moral values. These days the importance of these three is becoming clearer to me, and it seems far greater than I used to think; there is much more to them than their direct ethical value. In this column I wish to explain why.
The State of Public Debate Today
A few days ago we were informed that all the major social networks in the world had decided to silence the outgoing American president, Donald Trump, may he live and be well, and erase him from the map (since then some have somewhat moderated their steps). Let me preface this by saying that, in my view, the man is a walking horror: morally and humanly degraded, cynical and repulsive, a harasser and money‑grubber, a pathological liar, a spreader of fake news and an inciter, at times antisemitic (when it suits him), an encourager of bearing and using arms, a promoter of Nazi and racist groups, and a danger to our globe and the human society living on it on several planes, in scopes and ranges I find hard even to imagine. Before you jump to respond that I’m captive to left‑wing propaganda, hold on. I write all this only as background to an argument that goes in the opposite direction, so there’s no point in discussing whether my description of Trump is accurate. In any case, if someone truly sees Trump that way, what’s wrong with taking a problematic step to earn the removal of that harm from the map? Is freedom of expression a value that outweighs all the terrible harms I enumerated? Is every person’s freedom, including that of such a degraded creature, a foundational value worth any price? Surprisingly, my answer to all that is yes.[3]
Despite everything I said about Trump—and perhaps precisely because of it—the decision to silence him is, in my eyes, a scandal, especially when it is made and executed by businessmen and owners of commercial corporations, rather than by an objective judicial tribunal (insofar as such a thing exists) that could allow him to defend himself and present his side. It’s important to remember we’re talking about a man whom almost half of U.S. citizens want as president. He represents a broad social phenomenon that will not disappear even if we shut our eyes and completely silence Trump. Will silencing him actually solve any problem? If half of American citizens are not allowed to express those opinions online, will that really improve the situation? On the contrary—it will arouse frustration and (justified) feelings of persecution that will lead to spreading those views by any possible means and to further radicalization. Moreover, who is authorized to decide there is no substance to those opinions? I, who oppose them? Zuckerberg? Don’t we have the right and duty to hear those arguments—whatever their nature and quality—and decide for ourselves? Is Zuckerberg supposed to decide what is legitimate, what will be heard and what will not, and thus manage global discourse? Steps like these, beyond the harm inherent in silencing opinions and arguments, also create antagonism and slam the door on the possibility of social dialogue—and therefore on the possibility of real change. Beyond that, they also elicit and legitimize counterreactions of even greater intensity.
In an interesting series (though not a masterpiece) I just watched, “The Good Fight,” a law firm of Black attorneys in Chicago is depicted. Of course almost all of them (apart from one) and their surrounding milieu are Democrats who hate Trump and feel deep loathing for him and for everything around him. This state of affairs and these feelings drive them to despair and deep frustration, leading some to take far‑reaching steps, for the end justifies the means. They engage in election fraud (because Trump does it too), plant false information and baseless smears against him and his supporters (because Trump does that too), conceal facts, personally persecute people among his supporters, make non‑merit‑based appointments to various positions (judicial and otherwise), use violence (up to causing murder), and more. All this is done by normative people who understand full well how problematic such conduct is. These are people who would never have dreamed of behaving that way—jurists and people committed to the democratic tradition, to liberal values and freedom of opinion—yet that is precisely what leads them to justify those steps. They see no other way to bring him down and save democracy. And ostensibly, from their perspective, they are right, for the harm (as they assess it) is immense; hence, they believe, such steps are justified.
I’m describing the Democratic side, but of course the Republican side is not sitting idly by. Regarding some of them (the racist elements, the gun lobby, the KKK, etc.), some would say this is only to be expected. Thus on both sides the situation escalates and reaches what we are experiencing today (which I’ll describe further below). Likewise, the maligned conservatives point out that the champions of liberalism are running wild in the streets with violence no less than the assault on the Capitol, with full encouragement from the “moderate” elites; therefore the criticism of them is perceived as tendentious and condescending. Both sides distort data and silence people and positions in a crude and violent manner, and none of this tarnishes (at least in their own eyes—and perhaps in the eyes of a significant slice of the innocent public) their chivalrous and enlightened image. In this game there are almost no righteous people—and certainly not only on one side.
And I haven’t even begun to address the situation in Israel, which looks very similar (replace Trump with Bibi). Silencing and “etrog‑ing” (protective whitewashing), distortion and slanted presentation of facts (I just saw an article—one of many—by Kalman Liebskind on the matter), harassment of people from the other side, lies and fake news, delegitimization, childish hysteria (everything is either the absolute ruin of democracy from the right or betrayal from the left). All these are steps and statements made openly—some even with full awareness of the manipulation—but ostensibly they are justified: there is no other way to get rid of the corrupt person or party and the damage and ruin they bring (as perceived). I’m trying to show how a situation has arisen in which completely normative people on both sides find themselves compelled to descend into such conduct.
The Justification
I personally believe in the sincerity of all sides. I am impressed that people and groups truly feel that red lines have been crossed by other people or groups, and therefore allow themselves to act against them in dishonest and immoral ways. To the best of my judgment, in most cases this is not manipulation—but precisely for that reason these phenomena are so dangerous.
A few days ago I read that, as part of the impeachment process against Trump (one week before the end of his term), Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House) delivered a speech in Congress and quoted Ehud Manor’s song, “I Have No Other Country.” She expressed there a feeling prevalent among many American citizens—a feeling we often hear in Israel as well—that their country has been stolen from them. The country has changed its face and is degenerating into unbearable depths we cannot and must not accept. Therefore, in their view, this is something not entitled to the protections of freedom of opinion and democracy, and it also justifies steps that in any other context would be considered by all of us as base. Out of the sense of helplessness, unfairness, and the terrible threats looming from the opposing side (each can fill in their own sons of light and sons of darkness, angels and demons), there is “no choice” but to take steps of silencing—such as impeaching a president a week before the end of his term, or even afterward—silencing him, presenting falsified and distorted facts, and more. This is also the justification of left‑wing figures in Israel who take similar steps against Bibi and Likud—but of course so it is as well on the right. Again, I’m persuaded this is authentic, on both sides.
If, for a moment, we try to step into the other’s shoes (which are usually very similar to our own), these justifications seem on their face entirely reasonable: lying is not such a grave offense, and even freedom of expression is not above every harm and threat we face. There are emergency situations (so long as they’re from my side, of course) that justify infringing these values. Democrats in the U.S. think it is imperative to stop this dangerous, terrible man (Trump), the like of which has never been—and if there is no other way, then there is no choice. Is truth and obedience to the law an absolute value? Doesn’t removing a Nazi monster (that is how most Democrats, and no small number of Republicans, see him and his milieu) justify a little lying and distortion of the truth, or taking undemocratic steps? I began this column by saying that truth is indeed an important value, but it is not supreme.
I have previously mentioned here a conversation with a good friend—a wonderful person, secular and an activist leftist—after the Second Lebanon War. I was boiling with anger at Olmert, who sent people to die negligently, without purpose, plan, or justification (this was before the exposure of suspicions and investigations into his criminal aspects), and I said it would be proper to take joint action from right and left against this evil, harmful man. He replied that he was unwilling to join such activity, because the alternative is Bibi. If the price of stopping Bibi is supporting Olmert and his deeds, he had no problem with that (cf. “etrog,” here and, conversely, also here). I reminded him that when Ariel Sharon was appointed Defense Minister (I think this conversation was after the First Lebanon War and Sabra and Shatila), he warned me that the right wing was very happy that such a dangerous man had ascended to power because he doesn’t keep accounts and will act for the cause without being fazed by laws and rules. But, he argued, the right will itself pay a heavy price, because those same traits and modus operandi can turn against it with equal brutality and callousness. He prophesied without knowing he was prophesying. In our conversation after the Second Lebanon War I reminded him of that earlier conversation, and told him that now he was doing the same thing, and he would pay the price. I prophesied knowing what I was prophesying. As an exercise, try to guess whether, following that decisive argument, the fellow joined me in a fight to the finish against Olmert (and in retrospect that was the beginning of the end for him), or not…
The Cost: Short Term vs. Long Term
Nevertheless—and actually because of the deep inner conviction on both sides—the long‑term consequences are devastating. Trust in facts and news reports has been lost on all sides; everything is perceived as agenda and positionality, and one cannot present arguments and conduct a discussion. You cannot know whether the other is lying, and in fact you assume by default (and in many cases it is indeed true) that that is what he is doing. In such a situation discourse simply does not exist. By the way, here on the site as well, when I write certain things I already know in advance what un‑substantive responses will appear—everything is positionality (I assume there are those who think the same about my responses).
This is what I want to say to all who justify silencing and slanted treatment of opposing opinions (even when, in their view, those opinions cross red lines) on the claim that this is the way to stop and neutralize them. This approach may help in the short term, but in the long term it works against all of us. In this sense, the value of truth and intellectual honesty is supreme—not because lying is so terrible. Murder and harm to people are more terrible. But our ability to prevent the worst harms of any kind depends on the ability to persuade, and the way to do that is to conduct discourse and bring facts and arguments. Those who silence harmful views cause the collapse of the infrastructure needed to conduct discourse, thereby shooting themselves in the foot. See how the public now relates to journalistic reports and to decisions of the judicial system. Trust has been completely lost—and to a large extent with justification. Everyone acts tendentiously, and everyone is certain they are justified (the end justifies the means), but the result is that we all approach everything we hear from the starting point that it’s tendentious manipulation and lies—and the greatest trouble is that this is not entirely unjustified. In many cases it’s really so.
Beyond all the direct harms, such conduct entrenches itself long‑term. Once we take such “justified” steps against our opponents, they will find justification to do the same to us, and vice versa. This creates a situation in which these attitudes are indeed justified, for the other side (like me) really is lying and manipulating and truly not listening—so what’s the point of listening and/or trying to persuade him? And so on, in a vicious circle. Thus we reach a state in which we have no way to conduct a discussion and reach decisions because the rules of the game are broken. What remains is only a mode of forceful and manipulative conduct in which the end justifies all means. But in the end, when we’ve broken the rules and used every kind of means, we still won’t achieve our goal. So why employ all these means if they don’t work? Why manipulate and distort information if the other side is not really persuaded by it? In the end it turns out that these manipulations are aimed at our own people, to fortify their belief in the righteousness of our path, since the others don’t relate to our lies anyway. In the end we shoot ourselves in the foot and we all lose—even on our own terms.
Part of the problem is also the exaggerations and hysteria (which are part of the manipulation). For example, the ridiculous and hysterical portrayal from the left as if every foolish act here is the ruin of democracy. These are manipulations sometimes carried out under the same justification, but I am truly persuaded that they themselves end up believing it. If you repeat such nonsense constantly, it eventually sinks in. Thus the left entrenches itself in its stance, and the right will not yield even when steps it takes are in fact the ruin of democracy. Likewise with the labels of “traitor” that the right slaps on any group or person with a leftist stance. These exaggerations remind me of the “endless‑cord” gag by the Gashash in “Kraker vs. Kraker.” There’s a cry‑wolf effect, and discourse loses its meaning.
When you present slanted “facts” and silence the arguments of those who espouse a different stance—when you exaggerate every one of your own arguments and belittle every argument of the other—there is no discourse. In the end you convince yourself of the nonsense you yourself invent, and thus the process feeds on itself. The more extreme the attitude toward a person or group, the more biased the facts presented against them and the more arguments in their favor are silenced; then an even stronger justification is created to take illegitimate steps against them to oust them, and so on in a spiral. And again: this happens on both sides of the map. There are no pure righteous and evil villains here.
Balance or Monadology
In the U.S., for quite some time the media is ostensibly more balanced, since there are outlets on both political sides. In Israel the situation was different, though lately it has been shifting that way, as outlets arise that present a slanted picture in the opposite direction of the customary left‑leaning one.
But note that this is not actually balance; it is a deepening of polarization. This is monadology—that is, living in bubbles—where each person lives in their own bubble, nourished by the biased facts and arguments presented in that bubble, fed by the bubble’s media, hearing the views of the bubble’s people and, if at all, receiving a tendentious presentation of opposing views. In the end, of course, he “forms his opinions” accordingly. This in turn further justifies his clinging to the bubble and his lack of attentiveness and tolerance toward what goes on in other bubbles (which he is commanded to silence, for everything there is manipulation), and so on.
Consider, for example, our political situation. Bibi’s supporters are sure he is a righteous man of the highest order and that everything said against him is slander. When facts are raised, they are perceived as distortions and tendentious propaganda (some perhaps are). His rivals, for their part, are sure he is thoroughly wicked. Every good thing is interpreted by them as propaganda (and some of it really is). Just yesterday I heard a news headline about “a first union among the center‑left movements” ahead of the upcoming elections: Bogie is about to unite with Huldai. When Bogie is a “center‑left movement,” you realize how propaganda has completely washed over the discourse. Note that these aren’t Likud propagandists, who are nothing but a broken record repeating slogans and smears in an embarrassingly inept way (in my opinion the Likud response team deserves the Intergalactic Garbage Award; they are the worst at this—see below on Ehud Barak’s predictions). This was a headline on Channel 12 or 13 news, hardly a Likud mouthpiece. It simply seeped in, and no one noticed that the term “center‑left” had replaced everyone in the “Anyone But Bibi” camp. Bennett is not yet a center‑left movement, but that too will come (when he explicitly refuses to join Bibi). It is a veritable dance of distorted manipulations, and I pinch myself now and then to make sure I’m still awake, alive, and breathing. Honestly, in most cases I’m not entirely convinced.
This is the source of the helplessness I described. The feeling is that you can have good arguments and be armed with unambiguous facts, and still none of it will help you (and, after all, who knows whether your facts aren’t fake news). It’s no wonder that everything a person says is perceived as positionality rather than as substantive argument, because people really do allow themselves to use these methods. So is it any wonder that their words receive precisely such treatment?! People who, in internal discourse, justify such fake stunts then wonder why others don’t listen to them or are not impressed by the arguments and facts they present. The media and official institutions also operate quite a bit out of agenda, and so no one finds it appropriate to relate to arguments and facts, because there are no arguments and no facts. Everything, including what is presented as arguments and facts, is perceived (sometimes justifiably, sometimes not) as a war of positions, spins, and PR tricks. Journalists “etrog” figures and conceal facts according to their agenda, and trust in institutions, facts, arguments, and discourse has been completely lost for all of us. One cannot talk. It is truly discouraging. People can hold positions and arguments that are foolish, and it would be very easy to show them the folly—but you know there is no chance of succeeding. When you present an argument you’ll be told you’re right‑wing/left‑wing/a traitor/a captive of the media/a captive of Bibi, and so on. You will not receive substantive engagement, not even counterarguments—and certainly not agreement.
On Manners and Etiquette
In such a state you can at best expect polite engagement—which of course helps me not at all. What do I need politeness for? What good does it do me? I want listening—and then, for all I care, a good fight (verbal). Have you noticed that even when people want to soften and improve discourse, their comments revolve only around politeness and attitude toward the other? Whether they are extreme or not, attentive or not, polite or not. No one is interested in whether they raise substantive arguments, whether they listen and are willing to be persuaded. As far as we’re concerned, let them do what they want—so long as it’s polite. There are NGOs and periodic campaigns for meetings, listening, and exchanging “opinions,” when in fact it is nothing but politeness.
The reason is that persuasion today is a dirty word, a matter for the messianic age. I’ve already written several times that politeness doesn’t interest me at all. What matters is substance. Present well‑reasoned arguments—and you may do so with cynicism and while taking jabs at me and my mother who bore me. Alongside your arguments you are welcome to curse the day I came into the world (when darkness covered the earth and thick clouds the peoples) and treat me as scum. That, in my eyes, is far preferable to polite engagement that is non‑substantive and inattentive. Our problem is not politeness but substance—and these are not synonyms. Here on the site, more than once I’ve been criticized for a cynical, caustic style, but I don’t think you’ll find unreasoned invective from me. I present arguments—and write them in a cynical, mocking tone. One could debate the utility and effect of that, but I do not accept criticism of its legitimacy. On the contrary, the discourse about politeness replaces the more important discourse about substance.
In this context note, for example, the right of reply given to any person or body against whom claims are raised in the media. This is an ethical rule of media outlets (at least the major ones bound by journalistic ethics). Ostensibly this is the apex of balance and politeness. You criticized the Likud? Give them the right to respond. But if you pay attention you’ll discover the response is always something like: “So‑and‑so is a traitor collaborating with the left under the guise of fake patriotism whose sole goal is to bring down Bibi and spread fake news. He has no right to criticize our revered leader.” I have never heard from the broken record of the Likud response team a single substantive argument presenting a position. So why, for heaven’s sake, give them the right of reply at all? They aren’t responding; they’re playing recordings. There was a great segment by Guy Zohar (see at the end of the episode linked here) in which Ehud Barak (full disclosure: one of my least liked people) systematically predicts in advance what the Likud’s response will be to any statement he makes, and time after time quotes it almost verbatim before it is even issued. When you later hear the actual statements, the resemblance is riveting—even if not at all surprising. It’s a must‑hear.
The Importance of Public Debate
Public debate is the cornerstone of running a society. The only way to improve the situation and fix failures is, first and foremost, to try to persuade people that they are acting or thinking improperly—and to give them the opportunity to persuade me. Without public debate, people just do whatever comes to mind, and you have no way to fix anything. Both left‑wing and right‑wing people want to express their opinions, present arguments, and try to persuade. Anyone who wants to advance any position must understand that the foundation for this is proper public debate. This is true for secular and religious, Arabs and Jews, liberals and conservatives, and more. But in the current situation none of these can truly do so. What can be done are spins, manipulations, stunts, empty slogans, and fake news.
It’s no wonder that in such a state only positionality remains. A person forms a stance by the gut, and his a priori stance remains with him forever; arguments and facts, however good, will not move him. He simply will not listen to them and/or will not believe them. He will interpret everything according to positionality; therefore nothing can move him—i.e., change that position. Sometimes there are good arguments that could change or refine my stance, but I cannot hear them—and even if I hear, I will not listen (for these are manipulations by leftists/Nazis/racists/democracy‑wreckers/traitors, etc.). The ultimate abomination is silencing positions and opinions—even the most extreme. In Column 6 I already wrote that banning Holocaust denial is, in my view, a scandal, because I want to hear every argument and decide for myself. I am not willing for anyone to make decisions for me and censor what I hear. That includes Zuckerberg and his friends silencing whomever they deem fit (see: Trump). The same applies to the freedom to preach missionary messages and any position you wish to promote. Without this we arrive at the ruin of our society—even if it is done to save it and its values.
The Conditions for Proper Public Discourse
If people cannot express their opinions, no discussion can be held. If people lie and distort facts and conceal the truth, again it’s impossible to hold a discussion. That is freedom. Without intellectual honesty, you can present arguments as good as can be—and it won’t help you. Everything is determined by positionality, and the quality of arguments is irrelevant. You cannot persuade anyone. That is honesty and truth. In addition, if people lack intelligence and cannot understand complex arguments—especially those that contradict their current stance (beyond the intellectual honesty to listen and respond substantively)—there is again no chance for discourse. That is the third side of our triangle: intelligence.
All of these give way before the terrible harms expected from the opposing stance, and ostensibly there is logic to that. None of these is an absolute value. Nevertheless, I want to argue here that their value far exceeds their ethical worth. They have instrumental value that is far more important. They are the bases for advancing any value whatsoever, for any social repair, and for discourse itself between us. As I’ve explained, even if we achieve something through fake news and other subversive acts, it will be a short‑term achievement. Trust in facts, in news reports, and of course in arguments, has been lost due to this conduct—and this price, in my view, is far worse than the most horrific ruler you can imagine (each can supply the appropriate name).
The feeling that what I’m doing is justified because the other is no less evil—and therefore I mustn’t be a sucker and deal with him honestly—is the mother of all evils. Even if it is true per se, what I’m doing brings about absolute devastation far greater than the harm my opponent might cause.
A Non‑Political Example: The Vaccines Debate
A striking example of the phenomenon I’m describing can be seen in the words of the director of Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon, who apparently lied shamelessly in a journalistic interview, with the goal of exaggerating the virtues of the vaccines. He presented false facts about the benefits of vaccination in order to get people to vaccinate. Ostensibly this is a laudable act. Doesn’t the moral price of a lie outweigh the harms it seeks to prevent? This is precisely the kind of reasoning I described above—where there is justification to lie to maximize benefit. The advantage of this example is that it’s not political; we’ve already grown accustomed to distortions in the political sphere.
Now the lie has been exposed—so consider its long‑term price. Suppose it persuaded a few more people to vaccinate. But what will people now say about any data presented to them? Might this harm not exact a heavy public‑health price on us—and, beyond that, a significant media price that causes the loss of public discourse? That doctor arrogates to himself authority by virtue of his professional knowledge (which he indeed has), and presents us with “his” truth while concealing facts that could undermine it. What about free discourse on vaccines? Shouldn’t all arguments of every kind be presented to us so that we can form our own stance? True, we are medical laypeople, yet I alone make decisions regarding myself. The expert can advise—but not decide, and certainly not lie. This is one example, among many, of the destructive harm of fake news—even when done with good intentions.
Yes—if people don’t get vaccinated it greatly endangers all of us. On the other hand, it is very important that counterarguments be heard. Perhaps there really is substance to opposition to vaccines? And even if many people make an incorrect, harmful decision, I far prefer that over lies that may lead to short‑term results but wreak devastating damage on our entire social fabric in the long term. That doctor, with wonderful intentions and medical knowledge (certainly greater than mine and most of his listeners’), took for himself an ostensibly justified medical authority—and thus made a significant contribution to the destruction of our politics and to a grievous blow to the social fabric as a whole. Our Sages taught that “a lie does not stand”—but it’s even more harmful than that. Not only does the lie fall in the end; it also brings about the general ruin of society. Truth and honesty may be more important than any other values, for they are the basis for discussion of values and for advancing values at all.
In light of this, I am very doubtful about the licenses to lie granted by the Sages. In my view, in most cases it is forbidden to use them, because their harm outweighs their benefit. Take, for example, the license of the Magen Avraham (sec. 156, with a source in the Talmud itself) to state things in the name of a great person so that people will accept them from me.[4] I have explained more than once the reasonable ethical foundation for this license, but here I wish to present the other side of the coin. If we know such a license exists, can we now believe anyone who says something in the name of a great person at all? There is a famous story about Rabbi Shalom Schwadron, who told his audience that the Chazon Ish had told him it is permitted to state things in the name of a great person so that people will accept them—and then immediately added: “And this itself I will not tell you whether the Chazon Ish actually said.” You can see how destructive lying is—even when justified.[5]
So What Should We Do?
We have reached the edge of the abyss. For this reason I contend that the three conditions for discourse—truth (and intellectual honesty), freedom, and intelligence—cannot be judged as ordinary values. Their inherent ethical importance is not so dramatic, but their instrumental importance is enormous. From this perspective they are more important than human life, health, and any other harm you can think of that could be caused by any given political figure or group. So what can and should be done?
First, give up the justifications I presented above. They cast a spell over us, but their long‑term price is terrible. Second, more generally, we must improve in these three elements: the freedom to express an opinion—ours or others’; the honesty with which we examine and present arguments—others’ or our own; and the intelligence we use to conduct these discussions. We are now called upon to be “suckers” and speak truth, to listen and allow everyone to present facts and arguments pro and con—and even, heaven forfend, to be persuaded. We are called upon not to distort arguments and facts, and to accept the truth from whoever says it. We are also called upon to improve our analytic and argumentative abilities, so as to attain reasonable capabilities for conducting intelligent, substantive discussion (which, in my estimation, most of the population currently lacks). My site tries to do this. It’s possible—and likely—that I too fall into these traps, but at least I try not to. My main goal, more than persuading anyone of anything, is to try to create substantive discourse in which it is permitted to present any argument and any stance, heretical and harmful as they may be—and what is required is not politeness but substance: freedom, honesty, and intelligence.
Since we are on the eve of elections, I’ll add that, ironically, the most important party to establish today is a party with no agenda, whose whole purpose is to purify discourse along the three components I described: freedom, intellectual honesty (truth), and intelligence. I’m looking for copywriters to find a good name for this party. Incidentally, because almost all the other parties in the arena are also agenda‑less, the price isn’t so terrible. You won’t lose much if you vote for this party. But before you vote—please join it. No need to register, sign up, or pay dues. What’s needed is to try to create discourse with these three characteristics.
On the margins of my remarks, I’ll add two practical recommendations in the spirit of these days:
- I highly recommend downloading the “Signal” app and starting to use it for our social communications instead of “WhatsApp” (for now, at least use it in parallel). This is not only because of the information‑security and privacy problems everyone is talking about today, but mainly because of freedom of discussion. My criticism of the networks is not lack of oversight but excess oversight. I really don’t want Zuckerberg—or anyone else—to be our global censor, taking down speakers who don’t please him under various pressures (those pressures are themselves part of the steps I described that are taken with positive motivations and bring about terrible destruction).[6] Signal is an open‑source app—that is, a project developed by a free group of volunteers—and to the extent I’ve checked it meets all safety and privacy tests and has no economic interest behind it. It’s a splendid app—the Wikipedia of social communication. In my humble opinion it is a sacred duty to promote it. One must understand there isn’t much benefit to such an app until we reach a high number of users. I gather that during these days of criticism of Zuckerberg and friends, it is the most popular app in the world. This is our opportunity to join a very important and beneficial trend.
- In addition, I highly recommend listening assiduously (but critically) to Guy Zohar’s daily program, “From the Other Side,” which is also uploaded to YouTube. There are real gems there on all the topics I addressed here. The show is dedicated to exposing the lies and manipulations I described, and truly does so from all directions and sides; thereby it contributes an invaluable service to the holy war against these phenomena (it too, of course, is not free of mistakes, but it is evident there is intelligence, honesty, good intentions—and also freedom, i.e., allowing any reasoned opinion to be expressed). It’s practically the flagship program of the party I described here. I’ll conclude with kudos to Guy Zohar for his excellent show. May such programs multiply in Israel until knowledge increases and the need for such shows disappears.
[1] On this distinction see Column 127 and elsewhere.
[2] On distinctions between types of values, see Column 154.
[3] I’m well aware many responses will arrive regarding my description of Trump, and people will explain, with good flavor and reason, that I’m brainwashed by the liberal‑left media and that they’re disappointed in me and my lack of critical sense. Perhaps that’s true (hint: I don’t think so), but I do not intend to enter a personality analysis of him or debates about him. Here I mentioned my view of him only as background meant to sharpen why, despite all that, silencing him is grave and scandalous.
[4] See on this in Columns 21, 63, and 304. You can also search the site’s Responsa (Q&A).
[5] Incidentally, the explanation I proposed there for this license was that it is meant precisely for a society that does not accept things without arguments—even if they are said in the name of a great person. But now you can see this very point empties the license of content and need. If indeed people listened to every argument without regard to the fact that its source is a great person, this license wouldn’t be needed. And if people don’t listen to arguments, and therefore I was permitted to lie and tell them those arguments in the name of a great person, in the end they won’t listen to any argument (because they will no longer believe that a great person said it). In a healthy society there is no need to lie, and if we lie to heal a sick society, we usually make it even sicker.
[6] At least so long as we are talking about expressing opinions and positions—however bad they may be. Speech that is likely, with near certainty, to cause violence is another matter, but even there censorship must be used very sparingly and only after a decision by a body as objective as possible. For example, the stormy criticism of interviews conducted with Yigal Amir, or the interview with Aviad Moshe, the murderer from Mitzpe Ramon. KAN 11 interviewed him and, following furious reactions and criticism, the network apologized and decided to remove it from the web (see here). Incidentally, I cannot find it now. It is truly unbelievable how this sensational interview has completely vanished from the web. The political commissars from the women’s organizations and their helpers have taken over our lives. In my eyes this is a scandalous silencing. Everything is done out of sanctimony and good intentions—but people actually want to silence positions, opinions, and other people, thereby preventing me from obtaining information regardless of any expected violent consequences. It is unparalleled impudence, and the capitulation to such pressure is a scandal.
Discussion
The rabbi is naive.
If he still doesn’t understand, what drives the world (aside from the Holy One, blessed be He, in hiddenness) is ego. From the outset most of these wars are ego wars. The overwhelming majority of politicians (and human beings) don’t really believe in anything except themselves. That is, they don’t serve their ideology; their ideology serves them. It gives them a sense of importance. It is like a suit for them, and they can switch it for another when that one serves them. Therefore it is actually very reasonable today to call people like Bogie, Sa’ar, and even Bennett leftists, because you know that if they can take revenge on Bibi, whom they hate bitterly (whether justifiably or not), then they will also realize left-wing ideology, or at least not act against it if that is what is on the table. (I remind you that when Bennett wanted to remain in the government he did not lift a finger for the appointment of judges from Tzohar when the Haredim opposed them, and even now under the slogan “No corona, nothing matters,” he will do nothing against the judicial system just for the opportunity to be prime minister.) So in practice the Likud response team is somehow right in its broken-record line.
Likewise, this war, despite the way the rabbi presents it, is not symmetrical. There are worse villains here. The reality of fake news (a term Trump himself coined) has existed for years on the left (since the days of communism). Only now has the right started using it to defend itself. And in a reality in which the right (normal people who just want to live quietly) lives together with the left (a bunch of crazy world-fixers) and communicates with it, it has no other choice. If someone on the right wants to be a man of truth, he has to live alone or not talk to leftists at all, but form his opinion on his own from the side—to live in the desert. You can listen to arguments, but you must not talk or be in interaction with these people. Leftists are very well known for the social pressure they exert to “think” the “right opinions” of the “right society” (there is something similar in the Haredi world, only the left is several times more obsessive). Right-wing people (journalists) constantly cannot get over their need to please their friends on the left, whereas those people have no problem ignoring reality when it is inconvenient for them. The left has a kind of autism that on the one hand gives it high self-confidence and on the other makes arguing with it very difficult. The “only Bibi” people are a balancing reaction to the “anyone but Bibi” people, and the rabbi must remember that. It is almost a law of nature (like Lenz’s law or Le Chatelier’s principle from chemistry) that these people would arise after all these years of brainwashing against Bibi, and he has no grounds to complain (“they started it”) against them.
That is, I have a feeling that for some reason this column is supposed (probably unconsciously) to fall on right-wing ears. Among leftists I have never encountered a willingness to be genuine. And that is not accidental. After all, the rabbi is describing here postmodern reality in all its glory, and postmodernism is the (anti-)ideology that drives the spearhead of the left. Indeed, this whole matter of narratives is leftist, and therefore if the right wants to remain such, it has to separate itself from the left (only hoping that a new left won’t later arise within it; after all, as I said, ego is what’s at play here). But sometimes, by chance and for the short term, you can fight the enemy (the enemy of sanity and common sense. Right now that is really what it is, at least not consciously in my opinion) with his own tools. Otherwise he won’t even feel your existence.
Beautiful. Thank you very much, Rabbi.
Precisely because of everything you said, there should be absolute freedom to bear arms (at least for anyone who served in the army).
The angry mob is stupid. Most people, even in leadership positions, are idiots. To be somewhat safe, you need a shotgun in the closet.
Look what is happening in the U.S. If they didn’t have weapons in their homes, many more people would have been killed by the violent protesters.
To tell the truth, I wanted to go back and put my statement from there again at the top of this column, a statement that I stand behind more than ever: I don’t understand how pogroms are not breaking out against the Haredim in present-day Israel. To me that is an immense wonder, and an enormous certificate of honor for the secular public and all the non-Haredim.
But you, Ehud, do not disappoint. You manage to write things in exactly the way described here in the column as the mother of all sins, and then turn it into a talkback on this very column. More power to you.
I think this response too fails in the same ways I described. It indicates that you yourself are not willing to discuss things on their merits and instead pin everything on ego. That is the mother of all sins. To the best of my judgment, I am not naive at all. I know many right-wingers and many left-wingers, and every last one of them genuinely believes in quite a few things and acts for them, irrespective of ego. True, we all also have ego. But to pin everything on ego is just nonsense (see also columns 120–122). And to think that leftists have more ego—that is the same entrenchment I was railing against in the column.
But of course you will say that since apparently you too are not exempt from the description that you yourself gave, then these words of yours as well are not written because you believe them, but because of ego. Disqualifying others by your own blemish?
I completely agree with the position presented in the post. But that too is only a position and not an argument. The fact that the value of truth is more important in the long run still does not make it loftier or more important. One can hold this view and found a party, but it is a minority party that most people do not identify with, and it is entirely legitimate not to think that way.
That is the problem with “freedom of speech” when it does not accept the freedom to oppose freedom of speech.
If you give every opinion legitimacy, the price is that antisemitism and racism are legitimate. I hope you are not in favor of giving a platform to opinions in favor of rape and pedophilia, even though there will be pedophiles who tell you that it is okay.
Your position is truth at any cost, and others have a different position.
I very much identify with the proposal to establish a movement or political body (perhaps even a parliamentary one) whose agenda would be truth and intellectual integrity. Years ago I tried to spread among my friends the idea of setting up a party that would run for the Knesset under this banner. If they managed to pass the electoral threshold (though even then I suspected this was my fantasy), they would demand as a condition for sitting in the government the Ministry of “Truth” (or the Authority for the Advancement of Truth). The upfront, openly declared limitation to dealing only with this area could serve as a certain guarantee that this movement/party would succeed in bringing added value to politics.
In my fantasy I imagine the Minister of Truth taking shots every week at the main organs of government and tearing them to pieces.
Good and accurate words, Rabbi Michi, thank you very much. I do want only to address what you wrote in note 6 regarding the interview with Aviad Moshe—I think taking down the interview does not stem only from the fact that there is a dangerous position here that one must not hear. I very much doubt that anyone would be persuaded one way or the other by Aviad Moshe presenting “his side.” In this case, the facts are quite clear—it is a matter of a violent, dangerous, and wicked man. No explanation or justification (other than “he is mentally ill and not responsible for his actions,” and I work with the “mentally ill” and can testify that even that argument does not always impress me—or of course other than “aliens took over her and I tried to kill her to save the world”) can justify the insane attack on his wife. In any case, the interview with him was not meant to let his position be heard. There is no “position” here; there is an attempt on his part to clear his name outside of court, and an attempt on the part of the interviewers to get ratings, stir things up, and make money from advertisements. Such an interview is the bottom of the barrel of yellow journalism, a device meant to exploit human voyeurism in order to rake in traffic for the site, violence pornography in broad daylight. Censorship of pornography is not censorship of opinions but an act meant to cleanse the discourse (in the broad sense). It may be that you disagree with me regarding this interview because in your opinion it does not fall under the definition of pornography, or because in your opinion freedom of expression also requires blanket permission for pornography (or because in your opinion it is not right to expand the concept of pornography—either because it is intrinsically wrong or because it is a slippery slope). So I can also understand why you would disagree with my position on this matter—but it does seem to me that in this context one should note that this is a different phenomenon: not the expression of a scandalous or harmful position, but cynical use of human voyeurism that wants to look into the eyes of a murderer and hear him speak. In my view this is a separate problem, and the discussion of it goes beyond the question of clarifying the truth, even if the conclusion will ultimately be that this too should be allowed.
In this context I also do not agree with the comparison to an interview with Yigal Amir—it is clear that there too the journalistic aim is identical to the aim of the interview with Aviad Moshe, but unlike the latter, an interview with Yigal Amir also has public value, because Rabin’s murder was not violence for the sake of violence but a political assassination, and in my opinion there is value in being able to hear the murderer’s side. There is such value also in the case of Aviad Moshe—for therapists and criminologists—but that is not a public value.
His opinion is that everything is ego. (Maybe on both sides.) And in your opinion that view is the “mother of all sins.” So you too are not answering with arguments, only with slogans—that it is “nonsense” and “entrenchment.”
(The problem is not that it is impolite, but that it is unreasoned.)
So he is disqualifying everyone by their own blemish.
Of course I too have ego. But the ego I am talking about is not what is generally called among human beings “ego.” I mean what in Chabad is called “yeshut” as opposed to “ayin.” I did not mean that all the people in the world act out of ego, but that the overwhelming majority do. There are also a very tiny few people of truth (and they themselves distance themselves from public life). I am not saying there is no truth. I believe in truth. I am saying that human beings are falsehood (liars). Within myself I can distinguish between my ego and what I think is right, but that is because I know there are consequences to falsehood, and therefore to believe in a lie is also contrary to my ego. What I am saying is that I am willing to discuss things on their merits with myself, but not with other people, because the overwhelming majority are people of falsehood. That is, when the moment of truth comes, they will believe anything that advances them, and therefore there is no point in discussing anything at all with human beings; human nature itself has to change. One has to take care of something real that will change human nature before opening any other discussion. And no, the rabbi’s column will not change anything on this matter.
I am indeed in a way “accusing” the rabbi of lacking self-awareness on this issue. Those many right-wingers and left-wingers whom the rabbi thinks are acting for their goal without ego are an optical illusion. I am confident that all of them act out of their yeshut. That is, they are not a chariot for the Divine Presence—for doing the right act (that is, it is not the Holy One, blessed be He, acting through them, but the horse within them. It is a clever and sophisticated horse, but it is still impulses and not free choice)—and these things are proven again and again when you see people change positions, or the wind goes out of their sails when clinging to their faith harms their honor or their sense of meaning (that is, when there is already someone else fighting their battle). In order not to act out of yeshut one has to be aware at all that one has it, and for the overwhelming majority of people this concept is complete gibberish. Even among people who are aware of the existence of yeshut within them, the moments when they do not act from it (the moments in which the Holy One, blessed be He, acts through them and they are a chariot for Him) are few moments like flashes of lightning in the darkness. And I am sorry for my constant preaching on matters of Kabbalah, but this is exactly the place for it. I promise the rabbi that the moment he sees what I am talking about, he will see it everywhere.
By the way, since the left-wing public is more educated (but at the moment not more intelligent) than most of the right-wing public, indeed its ego is bigger.
This is needless hair-splitting and empty of content. I am entirely in favor of expressing any position whatsoever, including that pedophilia is legitimate.
The moment a Ministry of Truth is established, all the overtones of Big Brother and Orwell will be awakened. It sounds awful. And indeed, it would not pass the electoral threshold.
If there is journalistic value to this interview and if there is any substance to the arguments, whoever heard it can decide. I, who did not hear it, cannot know, and with all due respect to you and the police, I have a mind of my own and I want to be exposed to the arguments before I form an opinion. That is exactly the core of the column’s argument.
And of course I forgot that my own words too were written out of yeshut (ego). But that is because right now I could not do otherwise. But they are indeed true, because they are the Cartesian Archimedean point for our matter. That is, any discussion of yeshut just like this here on the site will come from yeshut. But one must talk about it because that is the first thing one begins from. Without it there is nothing. One has to talk about it until people understand that this is the most important thing to deal with and understand that something more serious than a column is needed in order to rise above their ego.
I really do not agree. There is great journalistic value in getting to know such a character and seeing how he comes to acts like these. I understood that he argued there that any person can reach such a state under certain circumstances (for example if his wife abuses him verbally and emotionally. And that definitely can happen). This is very important and has journalistic value, and therefore it should be given expression. The question whether it is yellow journalism or not depends on the interviewer, but taking something out of journalism because it is yellow seems to me completely detached in the era of Big Brother and the like. In my opinion this is the real plane of discussion, and therefore it is certainly fit for broadcasting. Personally I would have found it very interesting, entirely apart from any sensationalism.
As I wrote, I have no problem with your disagreeing with the conclusion (I myself do not have a clear opinion in this context), and in my opinion too there is value in the interview—but not public value. On the public level it is very problematic in my eyes. In any case, assuming that indeed the entire value of this interview is merely clickbait, I think there is definitely room to take it down—because the discussion is not about positions and values but about the question of how legitimate pornography is—that is a different question (and of course the dispute will be over the boundaries of the concept of pornography). And by the way, in my opinion a program like Big Brother is immoral and should not exist.
There is a big difference between saying “antisemitism is legitimate” and saying “one should also give a platform to illegitimate opinions.” Is the opinion illegitimate? All the more so, give it a place so that the light of the sun will show everyone its deficiencies. Otherwise it will only flourish and bloom in the darkness, which is worse.
Ehud,
I am really curious how what Michi wrote and that you quoted is connected to a lack of integrity and intelligence.
Even if your attack on that wording of his is completely justified (in my opinion it is not), it is based on exactly the same fallacies that he described in the current column. You bring in something completely foreign to the matter itself—one can perhaps guess where it comes from—and you force the discussion in an act that could compete even with “Midnight Express” (for those who know it).
Michi, although I disagree with you on many things and more than once I have argued against you that here and there you sin by lacking intellectual integrity, nevertheless in light of Immanuel’s words I was truly filled with sorrow for you. The agenda you expressed in the column, which in my view is terrifyingly correct, has absolutely no chance against the confused scurrying of the intellectual forces that come out against you. If Immanuel’s words reflect the level of discussion of even 10 percent of the public, the prognosis is very discouraging. Sorry.
I am forced to admit that you are probably right. Maybe there are more modest proposals that would work (beyond what you yourself suggested in the column).
A person morally and humanly base, cynical and disgusting, a harasser and greedy, a pathological liar, a spreader of false reports and an inciter, at times antisemitic (when it suits him), encourages the possession of weapons and their use, encourages Nazi and racist groups, and harms our globe and the human society living on it on many planes, to extents and over spans that are very hard for me even to describe to myself. Before you respond that I am captive to leftist propaganda—
Where on earth did you get these things if not from leftist propaganda?
Can you provide sources for even some of the things you wrote? Stories that happened in reality that would back up these statements? To me this sounds like a word-for-word quote from some journalist, wise in his own eyes, from the New York Times, probably a graduate of critical studies at Berkeley or something of the sort.
Granted, I am not one of his great admirers, but it pains me to see you writing this because in my eyes you are perceived as an anchor of intellectual integrity in this world of falsehood, and to see you writing things like this (it is not the absolute first time, but the most extreme) saddens me.
Cynical—from where?
Disgusting—why?
A harasser—prove it.
Greedy—he earned his fortune by his own efforts, as a real-estate entrepreneur, not at the expense of the taxpayers, unlike Biden, and Obama who talked about social justice and lives in a mansion worth 16 million dollars that he earned from selling lectures and a book he wrote after finishing the presidency, and got 60 million dollars for it.
A pathological liar—where do you get that from? From articles saying Trump lies on average 30 times a day? Saying that during his election campaign he lied more than 10,000 times? Is that where you get it from?
A spreader of false reports—not at all unique.
An inciter—not at all unique, everyone does it on all sides.
Antisemitic—what?
Encourages possession of weapons—so what?
Their use—what?
Encourages groups etc.—what?
I am sad for you, Rabbi Michi.
I will try to sharpen what I want to say because the example is confusing (it is less critical to me whether the interview with Aviad Moshe should have been broadcast or not; it is only an example). My point is that in my opinion there are things that are published under the right of “freedom of expression” when in fact that does not belong there. Similar to the way abortions are branded under “a woman’s right over her own body.” Pornography (let us set aside now the question whether the interview falls under this category; I am speaking about “ordinary” pornography)—is considered legally permitted because supposedly there is freedom of expression and it is a kind of expression. My claim is that pornography is not expression; there is no opinion or idea there. It is simply commerce in a product that people want but that is destructive, similar to drug trafficking. The question there is not whether it falls under freedom of expression, but whether it falls under freedom of commerce. In my view there is a conceptual confusion here that is important to sharpen. Consequently we should ask, “What is pornography?” and then we can discuss whether the interview with Aviad Moshe is something beyond that (in my opinion yes, but not much beyond that, and the things beyond that are not a matter of public concern but a matter for research). But my important point was to say that in my view there are things that are supposedly “expression” but they are not.
Besides the fact that I agree with you almost one hundred percent, and that indeed Rabbi Michi is brainwashed by the leftist media and those currying favor with it, he already addressed this in the note. It was only meant as background to show that he opposes his silencing, so there is no need to discuss it here.
Actually I agree with you one hundred percent. I don’t know why I wrote almost. Just some need to show uniqueness.
It’s impossible to ignore it. In a post that talks about intellectual integrity, to open in such a completely opposite way…. I couldn’t ignore it.
“Do not speak so very proudly.”
Hello Doron,
I’ll try to explain; if you want—you’ll accept it. If you disagree—no big deal.
A lack of integrity and intelligence can show itself, for example, in comparing the behavior of the Haredim here בארץ to those who lived in 19th-century Eastern Europe, without really having a serious acquaintance with the reasons that caused the pogroms then.
A lack of integrity and intelligence in understanding (on the verge of justifying) criminal pogrom acts against Haredi society. Acts that are completely disproportionate to the sin committed by certain parts of that society.
Michi is known as no small provocateur; he has already admitted that about himself.
And when things aren’t going so well with all the books and columns, then every now and then you need to do something sharper in order to get a bit of the spotlight. Even the most extreme secularists did not claim that one should carry out a pogrom against Haredim who violate the guidelines.
By the way, those chiefly to blame for the behavior of part of the Haredim in this whole matter are the state and the secular governments first and foremost. For example, on the issue of the draft, they play silly games and petty politics of “bring them to the draft office to sign an exemption or let them get the exemption in advance without even coming to the office,” instead of establishing facts on the ground that every Jewish citizen of the state must enlist, period. They let them behave in the country however they want, and afterward are surprised why some of them behave this way toward us . . .
Immanuel, right?
To say that everything is based on ego, and that within every person behind every position whatsoever, without exception, there is always some explanation connected to depth psychology—and that it is never possible to judge any statement, to say whether it is logically sound, moral, or reasonable—this simply leads all of us into a dead end. If everything in the world is based only on depth psychology, that may be true. But it still does not mean there are no claims that are more correct and claims that are less correct. And it does not mean there is no truth and falsehood. There are things that are true and things that are false; there are things that are mistakes and things that are right. The psychological root behind every claim has nothing to do with whether the claim is false, true, or not true. I can oppose Nazism for a thousand psychological reasons—because psychologically I am uncomfortable seeing anorexic corpses; because I am a Jew and it makes me uncomfortable to see other Jews die; because I am squeamish and the words world war, millions dead, and the like take me out of my peace of mind and fantasy of a comfortable life with burekas and orange juice for breakfast and watching Survivor at night—in short, from ego and from my own selfish interests alone—and not because I truly morally oppose Nazism. But that does not make the moral arguments against Nazism incorrect, even if they were said from a place of comfort and ego alone.
By the way, it may also be that your conviction in the truth of Chabad doctrine and all the ego matters mentioned in it also stems from some deep psychological need. Maybe in your subconscious you know that you are a descendant of one of the leaders of that dynasty without being aware of it at all?
Forgive me, sir, but your claim is becoming stranger and stranger.
Where exactly do you see here “a lack of integrity and [a lack of] intelligence”?
There is here a factual claim (and it may be mistaken) about the norms of a certain society that arouse antagonism. The “comparison” is between the antagonism those norms aroused then among antisemites and the antagonism they arouse today among Israeli citizens.
On the margins of the matter I would stress that Michi in no way said that the similarity between the situations is one-to-one, as you imply. And even if he had said so and that were a mistake (it is not at all certain that it is a mistake), where do you see here “a lack of integrity and intelligence”?
These categories you are using are not relevant at all, and your resorting to them is exactly what Michi criticizes in this column—automatic thinking that creates connections that do not exist in reality at all.
So maybe his “comparison” is mistaken or malicious or provocative. Fine. That could be. But what does that have to do with what you said? In his opinion his claim is true just as in your opinion your claim against him is true. You can of course criticize him and argue with him as much as you like on the matter itself. That, yes. But slogans like “lack of integrity”..?
By and large Michi plays a very fair game (as said, not always, in my opinion): his site is an open platform for criticism of any subject, including his own views. That is actually an expression of very high intellectual integrity.
A note to myself: intellectual integrity is indeed a “moral” norm, but long before that it is a rational theoretical requirement (on which the moral norm relies).
I understand, and I argued against that in two ways: 1. This is not pornography but a very important and highly useful interview (though of course one should hear the questions that were asked there). 2. Even if it is pornography, it is interesting that they censored דווקא this and not other programs like Big Brother (which you also oppose). If people do not like pornography, they can shut down a few channels.
Hi Doron,
I’ll answer you with two questions—
1.
You wrote this:
“There is here a factual claim (and it may be mistaken) about the norms of a certain society that arouse antagonism. The ‘comparison’ is between the antagonism those norms aroused then among antisemites and the antagonism they arouse today among Israeli citizens.”
It’s not so clear to me why you put the word comparison in quotation marks.
The question is how Michi can claim any comparison between the behavior of Haredim in our day and Haredim in the 19th century if he has no serious indication (or even any indication at all) regarding the behavior of Haredim in 19th-century Eastern Europe?
Do you perhaps know anything serious about “behavior arousing antagonism among the Jews of Europe in the 19th century”?
And even if Michi did not mean a one-to-one comparison (and I doubt this claim of yours), still, the very fact that he makes some sort of comparison—that is a lack of integrity and a lack of intelligence.
Just as I have complaints against those who compare what the IDF does in Judea and Samaria to the Nazis, so too this comparison (or call it whatever you want) testifies to a lack of intelligence and integrity, especially in the case of someone who gives courses in “Introduction to Philosophical Thinking,” and himself brings such a very deficient argument (at best).
2. Even if the Haredim deserve criticism for their behavior (and they do), is this the way to do it—through such a shocking provocation as Michi’s (such a comparison)?
Doesn’t this exaggeration show a lack of integrity toward that public?
By the way, Michi has lots of weak arguments. Here this is just one example.
Anyone who looks at his words a bit critically immediately finds very serious flaws in them.
The problem is that Michi is convinced “that the sun shines out of him . . .” and that he stands with the most solid philosophical doctrine one can reach.
*Just correcting one small thing I wrote in the previous message. I wrote this:
“Even the most extreme secularists did not claim that one should carry out a pogrom against Haredim who violate the guidelines.”
That was written by mistake. I did not mean that Michi justified pogroms against Haredim (only that he understood them).
It may be that Michi has many serious flaws in his theories and that he is sure the sun shines out of his backside. But on the other hand, isn’t that part of the message in all these columns—that one should address arguments on their merits and not the arguers?
It may be that Michi is a cynical person, morally and humanly base, disgusting, narcissistic, anti-Haredi when it suits him, rude, provocative, tactless, and lacking basic integrity. Does that mean that the message he brings in this column is not true? That is, what connection is there at all between the content of this column and Michi’s character as a person? Even if he himself were revealed tomorrow as a murderer, how would that change the claims he makes in the column? After all, he wrote nowhere in this column that he is an example of moral thinking, intellectual integrity, and intelligence… only that one should conduct oneself with intellectually honest, intelligent, and free thinking.
Or in short:
I think that precisely you, as someone who doesn’t like his claims, and apparently also doesn’t much like the man himself, illustrate his argument quite nicely. Michi argues that Trump deserves freedom of speech and a platform even if he personally cannot stand him, and that argument answers exactly the claim you make against him: even if he himself is a scoundrel, that does not make his arguments incorrect and should not prevent him from writing his opinion…
And by the way, I’m not coming to defend Michi or claim anything about his personality… all in all, he himself doesn’t interest me; only his thought does… but it’s simply funny to see you illustrating exactly the kind of behavior he is railing against.
בס”ד 8 Cheshvan 5781
Whichever way you look at it, if truth and/or intelligence are supreme values, then there is room to limit the right of a fool and a liar to mislead the innocent public. And if freedom is a supreme value—then one must also give speaking rights to the fool and the liar who mislead the public.
Moreover, who will decide who adheres to truth and intelligence? After all, everyone thinks himself the pinnacle of truth and wisdom, and everyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or a liar. So the discussion remains polarized and full of verbal violence. And what have we gained?
In my humble opinion, what can improve discourse is adopting the conduct of the House of Hillel, who would rehearse the words of their opponents before disagreeing with them. This way brings the debater to try to understand the reasoning and view of his disputant.
In this way he may sometimes discover that the other person is also right, but even if he remains firm in his opinion, understanding the position of the other can help in persuading him. When one understands the basis of the other’s error, one can find fitting arguments that will persuade him. Mutual understanding even without agreement in any case brings mutual respect, and then the argument will be honorable and not an ugly quarrel.
In short: public discourse will be purified when each person tries to understand the system of considerations of the one who disagrees with him, and more than once he will discover that there are sides of truth even in the opponent’s reasoning.
With blessings, Yaron Fishel Ordner
Paragraph 3, line 3
…mutual understanding even without agreement can in any case bring about mutual appreciation…
The bewilderment bursts forth and rises, for the honored writer, even if one proves to him by a demonstration that even a stone is instantly softened, will immediately add roof upon roof, exposition upon witticism, and one invention chases another—but as for being persuaded, who has even mentioned such a thing. And this is the secret of “Whoever prays for his fellow is answered first,” because he needs him. From me, who withdraws from among you, etc.
I sign every word.
As stated, the comparison that Michi supposedly made in that column, if it exists at all… is not the main thing (even if it is mistaken and even if it is irrelevant).
Michi’s main claim in this column (but also in many other articles) is against the intellectual confusion that he believes is very prevalent (and in my modest opinion as well). At most you could have argued that in this specific article Michi himself “comes close” to the same fallacy with which he accuses others. In any case, if you were to carry out a “historical” survey of most of the things he has written (which for some reason you demand Michi do regarding the Haredim but not yourself), you would discover that in most cases Michi at least tries—and in my opinion often succeeds—to present a faithful picture of reality free of bias.
In addition, you should first of all (but not only) have addressed the central claim he raised: in your opinion, is he right in his criticism in principle or not?
To conclude, I will remind you that I myself have clashed with Michi more than once and have even accused him of lacking intellectual integrity in certain cases. When I did so, not only was I specific to the best of my ability—let us assume that here perhaps you met that criterion—but I also explained my words and set the man’s specific opinion on that subject against the totality of what he had written.
I did not descend to ad hominem attacks like you regarding his lack of success in his publications or something like that, and I did not formulate a sweeping claim about his intellectual integrity just because in certain places I thought there was a problem.
In brief: in essence, your criticism does not express intellectual integrity in my opinion.
It seems the Likud has rented out its comment generator because it reached here too.
“He who wrote with such brutality about the sweet Haredim and proved that he is influenced in an extreme way by the radical left will not preach morality to us.”
בס”ד 8 Shevat 5781
To H.A.S.—greetings,
And the additional advice for an effective and fruitful public discussion is to avoid ad hominem arguments and address the matter itself. Ad hominem arguments are often the refuge of one who cannot cope with arguments backed by reasons and evidence, and in his distress he turns to personal contempt and abuse.
With blessings, Shatz
🙂
One must avoid making do *only* with ad hominem arguments and address *also* the matter itself. You argued that there is a connection between polite phrasing and the ability to persuade and be persuaded, and I argue that there is not. But I did not dispute the obvious idea that one should understand what the other person thinks before disagreeing with him. For me, the ad hominem here served only as a counterexample to your general claim. In any case, I have drawn my conclusions regarding the point of arguments between us. Discussions with others I will c/continue to conduct.
Doron and Rational Relative, hello.
As I wrote, I agree with Michi that harsh criticism is warranted toward the part of the Haredi public that does not observe the guidelines (I think the main blame lies with the state, which chose not to impose governance on this public for years, but there is no doubt that the Haredim themselves have no small part in violating the guidelines).
The basis of Michi’s argument does not rely on the comparison, but on looking at the facts (violating guidelines and painful, life-endangering behavior on the part of the Haredim). Even so, in my opinion the vile comparison Michi makes causes an injustice to the Jews of 19th-century Eastern Europe, because it presents a partial and perhaps even incorrect argument (the comparison).
I had two goals in the response:
1. To highlight Michi’s provocative character.
2. To show that he too makes unfounded arguments, even if in this case it is only “sub-/mini-arguments,” and not the main claim. And thereby to show that he too suffers from the lack of integrity and intelligence against which he rails.
So again, after I have clarified that the basis of Michi’s claim regarding the Haredim is correct, can any of you address my questions specifically—what do you think of the vile comparison Michi makes? How would you define it?
1. Michi really is provocative. Big deal.
2. Did you understand what comparison he made? In my opinion the comparison—which, as even you now admit, is a marginal matter in his article—is between the mentality and practical conduct of the Haredim in two different periods (then and now) and their possible and actual results.
I think the comparison is largely correct, though not really relevant.
Antisemitism in Eastern Europe made bad use of an existing mentality and way of life of the Jews who lived among non-Jews.
On the one hand, those “diaspora” Jews advocated seclusion based on excessive fear of anything that in their eyes was not “Jewish,” and on the other hand they maintained condescension toward those non-Jews.
Of course antisemitism had additional reasons, and in any case the main blame lies with the aggressor and not the victim (the Jews). But you asked whether there is substance to the comparison… so yes, there is.
3. I myself wrote in response to that article that there is something auto-antisemitic in Michi’s statement. There was no need at all for that example on his part, even if it is correct. And all the same, the important part is that Michi explained the connection between the current Haredi mentality and possible reactions מצד the public. He did not justify such a reaction.
That in itself is a critical distinction that in our idiotic public discourse people are unwilling to make.
David. My intention is that according to this, it is also legitimate to argue that “one should not give a platform to illegitimate opinions.” And that is the view of everyone Michi goes out against in the column. Michi did not present an argument against this, but only set forth his own position, which opposes it.
The fact that this is more effective in the short term than in the long term is an agreed-upon fact that says nothing about the question “Is it right to silence positions that I consider illegitimate?”
If someone is in favor of giving a platform to every bizarre opinion, then certainly he must also give a platform to the opinion that says one should not give every opinion a platform. (Which is the majority view, and that is how public discourse with all the silencing is conducted, and that is perfectly fine.)
The comparison is a result of mistaken assumptions. If you are interested in arguing about this comparison, say which assumptions are incorrect, or what relevant differences were not taken into account.
In my opinion the whole discussion is baseless. If the Haredim and the secular public observe the guidelines with the same level of care, there should still be three times as much morbidity among the Haredim, because their families are three times larger than those of the secular public. (And that is contagion unrelated to reckless behavior; it is inside the home.) And that is roughly the situation today.
Which means everyone behaves the same way; it is just really fun to have an opportunity to blame the other.
You wrote:
“On the one hand, those diaspora Jews advocated seclusion based on excessive fear of anything that in their eyes was not Jewish, and on the other hand they maintained condescension toward those non-Jews.” (end of Doron quote)
If Michi’s article had dealt with fear, condescension, and the seclusion of Haredi society from the rest of the public in the country, I would say you were right.
But the article is not really about that, but about the conduct of the Haredi public during the coronavirus. I will illustrate that I am right by supplying a number of quotations from Michi’s article:
***************************************
“All these well-known limitations do not even begin to justify the horror that is taking place these days in Haredi districts …”
“I think a desecration of God’s name like this has not occurred in Israel since it was founded.”
“As a result of this reckless and infantile conduct . . .”
“The world sees before its eyes a herd of voluntarily and deliberately infantile fools, lacking understanding and lacking solidarity, and at the same time puffed up with self-importance and devoid of any ability for self-criticism. A collection of irresponsible little children who spout slogans they themselves do not believe in and also do not live by . . .”
******************************************
Now, dear Doron, if Michi’s article deals with the conduct of the Haredim during the coronavirus, then at the very least the comparison he makes to the Jews of 19th-century Eastern Europe should be *not* against the general behavior of the Jews of 19th-century Eastern Europe, but against *ugly* behavior of the Jews of 19th-century Eastern Europe. For example, Jews who endangered the lives of Gentiles.
But since to the best of my knowledge Michi has no indication or evidence whatsoever of ugly life-endangering behavior toward Gentiles מצד the Jews of 19th-century Eastern Europe, the comparison is false, ugly, manipulative, and of course shows a lack of integrity and intelligence on Michi’s part.
*By the way, regarding the seclusion of the Jews of Eastern Europe at that time—
Unlike the situation today, I think they then did have a good reason to shut themselves in, from the little I know about the moral level of the Gentiles in those areas at that time.
A technical note—this indentation here in the comments makes reading very difficult. If you find it appropriate to respond to me, please do so in a new response below, and we will continue from there.
Best regards, Ehud
If I understand correctly, the discussion touches on two matters: truth itself and the tactical side. The rabbi argues that even from the tactical side it is preferable to tell the truth. I wanted to ask: according to the rabbi, is there a limit to freedom of expression?
A person who explains why one should murder and so on—should every opinion be given a place? If Trump had explicitly called to go out to civil war and so on, would it still not be right to censor?
Is it right to grant freedom of expression in this way regarding a factual datum that I know with certainty?
If this is a tactical issue, then everything depends on the case; and if it is a matter of values, then the perspective would be different.
Submitted as a public service—an opinion piece from Haaretz today. I don’t have a subscription so I can’t read all of it; the headline is enough for me.
https://www.haaretz.co.il/opinions/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-1.9468060
Chayota, much remains hidden than revealed… your opinion of the article is unclear (I read only its opening paragraphs).
They have now sent me the whole thing photographed in images; I don’t know how to paste it here. I read it and I sign every word.
He is not calling there for popular violence. An intifada—that is, a shaking off and uprising—can take many forms. First of all enforcement (withholding budgets, fines and collecting them, arrests. Among other things one should toss Rabbi Kanievsky and the Belz Rebbe and a few more Pied Pipers into prison without a second thought), and afterward long-term political processes, mainly economic. Policy positions outward have become less important than the ticking socioeconomic bomb within. [Usually I am far from identifying with what Uri Misgav writes.]
Ehud, you are dragging us into side alleys… we were not dealing with Michi’s article about the Haredim but with the current article. For some reason you chose to bring an example from that article in order to criticize Michi about this article (about his lack of integrity, etc.).
You accused him in a sweeping way of intellectually dishonest conduct on the basis of a few limited expressions, admittedly unsuccessful. In that you yourself displayed a lack of intellectual integrity.
But even if we focus on the marginal example you brought, it seems to me that you are missing the point. The Haredi mentality has not changed all that much in the last hundred and fifty to two hundred years. The same pathological ambivalence I described above. Of course healthy criticism of that pathology should not fall into the trap of provocation (Michi), and certainly not into antisemitism and murderousness (“the wicked Gentiles”). And still, that is not Michi’s central claim, nor that of many others (including people very far from his approach) regarding the Haredim.
Physician, heal thyself.
To Rational,
Your response actually beautifully illustrates what I am writing. After all, I explicitly wrote that I am not saying there is no truth, but that most human beings are not genuine. I claim there is no point in human beings debating with one another (but not with themselves) so long as they are not aware of this falsehood I am talking about. But somehow your consciousness filtered that out (didn’t see it even though it was before your eyes). How do you think that happened? It is simply because you wanted to say what you wanted to say regardless of my words. You used my words as a platform for a kind of speech you wanted to give. I am not much better than you—I have an even bigger ego. Therefore I try to read every response I reply to at least one additional time. I always discover new things in that reading. So there you have how ego critically influences a discussion (it causes you not even to understand it).
Because what I am talking about is not depth psychology. It is not depth, because to me it is visible and clear as something out on the illuminated surface in broad daylight. And the moment people see it, it will also be clear to them, because it is found almost everywhere in almost every person and almost every moment (except for a few special people—the Rav Kook, Ashlag, etc.—who also have low moments some of the time. Ups and downs). And it is also not psychology but ontology. Reality. I claim there is no point in persuading a person to think differently from what he is if from the outset he does not truly think what he thinks he thinks. It is an effort for nothing. Most arguments are ego. The truth is not so interesting to people. Only arguments whose implication is direct and critical to life itself (say, discussions in wartime and danger to life about what to do when an immediate decision must be made, and this when all the discussants know that a wrong decision will cost them their lives, and on condition that their lives matter to them more than anything else—you would be surprised to hear that even then this ego interferes a great deal) are not like that. Most of the time people argue like two soccer teams playing against one another. And they will also switch teams if they are paid a better salary by the other team (and not necessarily if their team usually loses). That, by the way, is the whole bread and butter of lawyers and advisers and media people and marketing people. They literally learn how to use facts and arguments in order to achieve their goal—for example an acquittal in court. Or marketing a candidate in elections. Because reality really is complex, and truth has to do with giving the right weight to every argument and every fact. And they play exactly with the interpretive weights of the facts in order to achieve their goal. And most of the human species is of this type too. It wants to win its own case.
And truly, moral arguments by Jews against Nazism are a bluff and hypocrisy. And this is presumably one of the things that originally caused the hatred of the Jews (for which Nazism was only an excuse). If someone is your enemy then you may fight him without pretexts and moral objections. There is no point preaching morality to someone who is your enemy if morality does not interest him at all. This is manipulation by a weak person against someone stronger than he is, a kind of psychological warfare (and certainly not morality). Not that it is not okay, but when it is done without self-awareness, and when the enemy catches on that this is psychological warfare, then he will hate you all the more and then it also will not work. The point is that Jews like to talk about morality mostly because they are weak and unwilling to rise up and defend themselves. Because that itself requires them to unite, at least for this purpose. And Jews, after all, have the biggest ego in the world. Everyone is a prime minister and the supreme fighter for justice on his own behalf. And in matters of morality the speaker’s intention is decisive. In matters of morality there is no ad hominem. A person who is himself not moral in a certain area cannot preach morality to others on matters in that same area. Physician, heal thyself, etc.
Here is a photo of his article (thanks to Oren for the technical support!)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UmnHU-V-oIMbB-X9C4wpW5dpemg95kwB/view
In principle yes. I am in favor of freedom for every opinion whatsoever. However, where there is a near and probable concern of violence, there is justification for deletion.
If the rabbi does not understand why pogroms are not breaking out, then that is a bit disingenuous. There is no need for pogroms at all. It would have been possible to revoke budgets and rights all the way up to revoking citizenship (and therefore also not granting medical treatment), and that would be the end of it. Why get to pogroms? I am sure the Haredim would prefer loss of citizenship to pogroms. This is simply the idolatry of democracy, whose religious principles hold that all human beings (or citizens) are equal. After all, the reason their citizenship is not revoked is that otherwise they would also have to revoke it from Arabs (because their power would greatly increase in the Knesset and they would become a powerful swing vote), although that too is justified to the same degree, and they are afraid to do that for strategic reasons—reaction of the rest of the world, etc. So in fact the Haredim rent us their votes in the Knesset in exchange for budgets and so on. That is the deal. I personally think the deal is not worthwhile. Now it also includes ignoring their contempt in the overall war against coronavirus, contempt that also exists among the Arabs. This whole deal is not worthwhile and not just. Democracy in this case is not just, period. There is also common sense. But what can I say when a substantial portion of the other people here in this country do not believe that the state is supposed to be the state of the Jews (the core of the left), or do not work toward that (the rest of the left and the right’s flatterers). In the end it turns out that the only Zionists in this country are the non-Haredi Sephardim and the religious-Zionist public. That is a minority of the citizens. So why would pogroms break out? There are another million things to do first. And if they did break out, then it would be because of worship of the Moloch of democracy, and then it would simply be wickedness. It really would be parallel to the ancient pogroms carried out in the name of Christianity.
This is not an article, it is a lamentation, heartbreaking and horrifying. In decades to come they will study it as a manifesto that heralded the beginning of the end. Indeed, the experience this morning of reading these words was one of the straightforwardness of truthful words, words written in blood. True, the solutions do not seem to be on the horizon. This is a plague of consciousness in all strata, and it is hard to imagine how it will stop. On the margins I will say that for me this very much resonated with what you wrote about my question regarding the film “The Social Dilemma” (a film that even two months after its release had not been watched by Zuck—as he answered with his own mouth to the senator who questioned him on the matter—search the web). There you spoke about how addiction to screens, combined with the tricks used by those bastards who control it, leads, in your opinion too, to polarization of opinions in society, as each person is fed only opinions similar to his own, and most of the information he seeks in advance reaches his phone selectively. Now the paradox is that the social networks continue creating polarization, this time not by choosing what to give their customers, but what to prevent from them—and with a strong hand. I do not know what motivates this, but your opposition to regulation and to arbitrary decisions about what will be freely supplied to viewers—that opposition is precisely what continues to leave the power in the hands of Zuck and company. Woe is me because of my inclination, and woe is me because of my Creator: if the possibility of blocking information is mandated (from addictive trash and pornography for children to selective political opinions in the spirit of political correctness), then Zuck will decide for us to block Trump, and if there is no regulation then the social networks will continue forcibly blocking whatever they please on the one hand, and on the other forcibly pushing the conscious garbage that creates that very polarization more and more. A shame.
Correction: I do not know what motivates “that,” namely what was written above—to the conduct of the social networks (that is, how they profit from creating polarization in society, how this ultimately translates into money—I did not understand this on the technical level even while watching the film, but that stems mainly from my ignorance of such processes), and afterward I added that your opposition to regulation acts as a double-edged sword, and I have no solution to that because, as noted, I also think regulation is destructive, and to the same degree giving power into the hands of the networks (in general this of course includes many additional bodies) is also destructive. Perhaps the distinction of one of the commenters above, who differentiated between freedom of expression, which should be preserved, and freedom of commerce, which should be minimized (just as drugs are banned, so negative content that destroys children and all of us should be banned—or you know what, not banned from above, but give a clear option to whoever requests it to have such content hermetically blocked from him). I don’t know.
There is no principled problem here. There should be regulation of the networks aimed at ensuring that they do not censor.
בס”ד 8 Shevat 5781
To R.M.D.A.—greetings,
When regulation of social networks to prevent censorship is established—for the sake of equality it will be necessary to apply the prohibition of censorship also to owners of blogs and private sites.
And then everyone whose comment or question you deleted will sue you for censoring him. Are you really interested in that?
With the blessing “we are believers, children of believers,” Mumin-Troll (with a dot*
No connection.
A private, free blog can be run as we wish.
And what is the difference? Just as I am not obliged to let everyone enter my private home—so too in my business premises I am the master who determines the “rules of the game.”
Besides the property right of the business owner, there is also an economic risk for him, since if his site becomes a gathering place for disgruntled or inciting customers, decent people will withdraw their hands from that site, and its owner will be found losing out.
On a site belonging to the public, there is room to demand that every sector and group receive representation there appropriate to its share in society, and even there there is room to set “rules of the game” that will prevent publication of lies, defamation, rebellion, and incitement.
What is prohibited by law—there is room to limit it.
With blessings, Amiuz Yaron Schnitzler
בס”ד ערב Shabbat Kodesh “that the Torah of the Lord may be in your mouth” 5781
Beyond the importance of the rules of public discourse—it is more important that each person develop self-discipline and express himself in a relevant and clean manner.
After all, the purpose of public discourse is to influence and win souls for the idea one is trying to “sell.” Strident and blunt discourse gives great pleasure to those already convinced, but it distances those “in the middle,” and therefore it is an “own goal.” For it is the undecided whom we want to draw to our side, and they recoil from inflammatory discourse.
Fortunately for us, our left has not grasped this basic fact of life, and therefore it continues with blunt and condescending discourse and thereby “signs a permanent lease” in the opposition. Trump discovered this secret a bit too late, and from blunt and inflammatory discourse that alienated even many Republicans from him—in recent days he has begun to speak nicely.
Words of truth are beautiful when they are presented pleasantly and in good taste.
With blessings, Yosef Tzvi Bidani Levi-Trumpist
Is this really a phenomenon of our generation? Was there not always silencing?
Maybe we notice it only because there is greater awareness of the matter?
I actually find many forums where one can discuss arguments on their merits. It seems to me that things are improving, and out of this abundance the silencing and discussions of people rather than claims—which always existed—are becoming visible…
Michi, you wrote:
“I am in favor of freedom for every opinion whatsoever. However, where there is a near and probable concern of violence, there is justification for deletion.”
On the other hand, you wrote:
“I am entirely in favor of expressing any position whatsoever, including that pedophilia is legitimate.”
Do you not think that expressing the position that “pedophilia is legitimate” could cause someone with pedophilic tendencies who does not act on them (at least not in the world of action) to actually act on them because of the expression of a position supporting the legitimacy of pedophilia?
If there is a near concern about violent acts, this should be forbidden. In any case one must discuss it on its merits. What I wrote is that when it comes to the expression of an opinion there are no limitations. Support for pedophilia does not necessarily lead to violent acts. Someone who writes an op-ed or an academic article in praise of pedophilia is entirely entitled to freedom of opinion. Moreover, in order to forbid the expression of an opinion, the burden of proof is on the one who forbids it. The fact that it seems to you that such an article will with near probability lead to violence means nothing. The question is whether this is supported by any data or by a very clear impression. Without that there is no justification for silencing.
Although I am personally against regulation altogether, even in business, one cannot be hypocritical in any case. There are restrictions on businesses. In the U.S. one may not refuse to employ someone on the basis of racial discrimination. You can literally be sued for it. Here in Israel they fined a print-shop owner who refused to provide service to homosexuals on the basis of his religious faith. Why is this allowed here? He too could claim that the other Haredim would boycott his business because he provides such service, and he would lose all his customers. Why must I employ an Arab who will drive away customers? You can’t hold the rope at both ends. Either there is no regulation at all, or if there is regulation then there should also be regulation against silencing.
Sorry, the place for my previous response is here:
You are mistaken. Although I am personally against regulation altogether, even in business, one cannot be hypocritical in any case. There are restrictions on businesses. In the U.S. one may not refuse to employ someone on the basis of racial discrimination. You can literally be sued for it. Here in Israel they fined a print-shop owner who refused to provide service to homosexuals on the basis of his religious faith. Why is this allowed here? He too could claim that the other Haredim would boycott his business because he provides such service, and he would lose all his customers. Why must I employ an Arab who will drive away customers? You can’t hold the rope at both ends. Either there is no regulation at all, or if there is regulation then there should also be regulation against silencing.
בס”ד ערב Shabbat Kodesh “And if a stranger sojourn with you and keeps the Passover” 5781
To Immanuel—greetings,
The distinction is clear. A law that forbids a business owner to discriminate against a person because of his nationality or race cannot forbid a business owner to establish a “binding code of conduct” within his private domain. A person is not obligated to provide service to someone who incites to violence or leads the public into transgression, and the judge who fined a religious Jewish print-shop owner for refusing to assist in a violation of his religion distorted the law and violated the printer’s right to freedom of religion.
The fact that laws can be twisted and distorted and used abusively is not a reason to abolish the very need for them. There must be basic regulation that prevents a situation in which “every man swallows his fellow alive.”
The Torah too makes clear that the fact that the Lord passed over the houses of the children of Israel when He struck Egypt was not because of the race of the children of Israel, but because they were “the hosts of the Lord,” the legion of the King of kings devoted to His service. Therefore the children of Israel were obliged to offer the Passover sacrifice, eat it meticulously according to God’s command, and put some of its blood on the doorposts—so that it would be clear that the deliverance of the household did not stem from their different race, but from their commitment to the service of God.
And from this principle it follows that a Gentile who converts and accepts upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of heaven has a share in the Passover as one who is an Israelite by birth, whereas one “whose deeds have made him estranged from his Father in heaven” is distanced from offering the Passover.
Even regarding Amalek and the peoples of Canaan, Maimonides ruled that if they accepted upon themselves the Noahide commandments, they are accepted. Even the descendants of the greatest enemies of Israel—Haman, Sisera, Sennacherib, and Nero Caesar—merited a place of honor as tannaim and amoraim. Moses our teacher is called “the son of Bithiah” after Pharaoh’s daughter, who rebelled against “the idols of her father’s house” and saved him.
With blessings for a good Sabbath, Amiuz Yaron Schnitzler
Paragraph 2, line 3
…that will prevent a situation of…
Regarding pedophilia etc., it will arrive within a decade at most. Just as we have gone through all the letters of LGBTQ, the letters that come after it will also arrive—children too, family relations, animals, and who knows what else.
Just as in the Bible, just as in the days of the decline of the great empires, everything repeats itself. Instead of hairsplitting all the way there, I would expect you to warn more about the slippery slope dragging us all as an affluent society straight there.
A comprehensive article describing that whole cyclical process. You have the ability to stop it so long as you do not fall into support for excess liberalism and freedom of speech regarding childish and ancient processes… attached here ->
The Song of Balfour:
בס”ד 11 Shevat 5781
To M.Y.—greetings,
There is a difference. Western society is permissive regarding what is done willingly and by consent, but strictly forbids what is done מתוך relations of authority, even among adults, and all the more so with minors, whose seduction is like rape. Here the principle of liberty, considered a “supreme value,” works for the good.
Perhaps we will merit that they also understand that channeling people with same-sex attraction into thinking there is no possibility of overcoming their inclination likewise harms their freedom of choice and their right to establish a family in the ordinary way, a family whose children grow up with a father and a mother.
With blessings, Simcha Fishel HaLevi Plankton
To Shatz, greetings,
The progressive Western society in its own eyes (see the article “The Song of Balfour”)
has no defined and fixed boundary. The boundary always moves and always will move. Maybe you set the theoretical boundary as the principle of liberty, but in practice the boundary is breached day by day, and will continue to be breached… (perhaps there is an interest in this—who knows?)
Society is a satiated society that engages in hairsplitting in the social sciences as though they were the natural sciences. It builds castles in the air on issues of sexuality/modesty as though they were structures of pure mathematics.
Society is in decline, and through preoccupation with analyticity on regressive subjects (see the article “The Song of Balfour”) people fail to see the synthesis of the Titanic’s sinking.
With blessings, Jack Dawson.
An interesting article. True, the message is overall fairly standard and many feel this way, but it presented it clearly and sharply. Of course one can argue about the analogies, and also about the analysis of this or that event, but the phenomenon of decadence is well known and he did not invent it. Not even with respect to Israel today.
My main problem with claims of this kind is that they place ideas and values on the basis of their utility and their results. That is, the question whether one should or should not give equal rights to women, or what the proper attitude toward LGBT people is—in my opinion these are questions that stand on their own, and none of them should be decided according to whether this is a symptom of our destruction or not. If women deserve rights, then they should be given them, and if this expresses our destruction, then so be it. Since I truly believe in this equality, all these apocalyptic prophecies do not change anything for me (I also do not tend to believe them, but that is not the point). And in general, Ben-Gurion already said that all the experts and historians are experts on what has been, not on what will be.
And one more remark at the margin. Identifying these processes with Balfour is the father of all sins. There is a protest there against a corrupt prime minister who should not be serving in his position. The fact that those who are leading it mostly belong to certain strata (decadent, in the author’s view) stems from the fact that others (= us) do not care. From our point of view, corruption does not interest us, and the most important thing is that there be someone there with right-wing mantras (even if not really with right-wing action). Therefore even if he is right, then Balfour is not the problem but a symptom of the problem. For me, if I were to take the article seriously, the conclusion would be to join the Balfour protests, not to withdraw from them. We have no one to complain against but ourselves. By the way, governmental corruption is no less critical a historical and social symptom of the decline of kingdoms.
By the way, I did not see who the author is there. Do you know?
A very interesting topic. It has been troubling me a lot lately.
A few comments of mine:
1. It is hard not to address the place of the algorithms in this story. In the film “The Social Dilemma” one claim more or less is presented—and it is that when the various algorithms of the social networks are programmed only to get one more click, the system creates for the user follow-up pieces that reinforce his position (or touch various beastly strings such as sexual impulse and the like). This creates a situation in which a person (who is drowsy in the stages of media use) receives only more and more reinforcement for a position he already held in advance—and thereby the algorithm gets more and more screen time—advertising—money. Therefore, even if we remove Zuckerberg and company from the picture, there is still a problem of creating an echo chamber for crazy views such as QAnon that can receive powerful amplification within a social network.
2. The question of intelligence troubles me greatly. What can I do—most people are not very smart and do not have analytical ability. My wife and I teach in many places where there is a high level of study, but it is still hard to find students/people who meet standards that enable them to analyze complex positions, and you see it in the field. This question has always occupied me in endless discussions about various rabbinic decrees and soft and hard paternalism found in all our religious and civic ways of life. I want only freedom, but we know dozens and hundreds of people who, if there were not a force operating and guiding them, would fall prey to various manipulations existing in the world. I once heard Rabbi Cherlow say that he once sat on the ethics committee in a discussion: should one tell a patient all his treatment options? And one of the doctors there said that once a man sat before him regarding the treatment options for his wife—midway he stopped him and said: My dear fellow, let’s do it this way: what would you do for your wife, do for my wife. Sometimes people want decisions made for them; as a society they even expect the rabbi/leader to guide them in a certain path rather than deciding for themselves, and when that is the situation—especially in our day with the flood of knowledge and possibilities—there is room also to say that wise people should stand and chart a line and a way, and also censor nonsense where necessary. (Certainly these would not be the people responsible for this today, but from your words I understand that you oppose all of the above in principle.)
P.S. One last comment—in a world of intellectual dishonesty as you described, the definition of Bogie as center-left is absolutely correct. That is, it is not a propagandistic lie of Likud; it is a clear choice of side—in the current polarization that has nothing at all to do with the now-defunct political views of right and left, but with social belonging to one tribe and not a certain tribe, which today is called center-left. Bennett does not belong there not because he has not yet disqualified Bibi, but he has not yet disqualified Bibi because in the current polarization his disqualification of Bibi would, from his point of view, also create a disqualification by his voters.
בס”ד 12 Shevat 5781
To M.Y.G.D. Keshta—peace and blessings,
Since Spengler foresaw “The Decline of the West,” about 100 years have passed, and the West is alive and well, developing and flourishing. Thus, for example, within a few months of the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, international cooperation led to the development of life-saving vaccines.
The deficiency of Western culture—in seeking comfort and personal happiness—is also its advantage in many respects. Western man does not like wars, but seeks quiet and rest. This leads the Western state to develop the economy, science, and medicine that make the lives of its residents more comfortable. Likewise the atmosphere of freedom makes life in a Western country more comfortable and pleasant.
The weakness of Western hedonism enables violent regimes to succeed in the initial stage when they test their power against those weaker than themselves. But in the final reckoning, when the hubris of the violent grows and they dare to go out to struggle against the powers of the West, they lose because of the West’s economic and moral resilience. Thus the Nazis collapsed in their war, and thus the Communists collapsed.
The greater weakness of the West is that the man of abundance and comfort still lacks an enduring meaning of life grounded in faith. You live under marvelous conditions, but you still do not understand “What for?” The West wrestles with the questions of Ecclesiastes. Here we have an advantage, and this is what we can “sell” them, and especially today with “postmodernism”—the West is more open to new opinions that may give it meaning.
Therefore the way of crying out about the emptiness of the West seems less plausible. On the contrary, the Balfour demonstrations show that the more one condemns a person, the more support for him rises. We simply need to “offer our wares” of faith and values for sale, and little by little (or: very quickly) the “buyers” will come.
With blessings, Amiuz Yaron Schnitzler
And that is what I did in my previous response: I showed that precisely the principle of “liberty,” sanctified in the West, requires helping one who is interested in maintaining a normal family life with “father” and “mother.” By the way, there was a psychologist, an extreme liberal and even anti-religious, who helped people with same-sex tendencies free themselves and lead normal sexual lives.
Paragraph 3, line 5
…and thus the Communists collapsed from within, when their inhabitants became increasingly aware of the prosperity and comfort in the lands of freedom.
Who cares about the law? What matters is justice. If the court distorts it (both the law and justice), and this is agreed upon by a third of the members of Knesset, that means the social foundation is shaky. So what is there to discuss at all? After all, all these heated flare-ups are against the background of this very social division. I don’t care if they censor. In any case a war will break out there sooner or later. The American Republicans (who see themselves as an ethnic nation) will stop being the suckers of all the immigrants there and the leftist layabouts who produce nothing (media people, journalists, jurists, academics in the sciences of nonsense… and it doesn’t end). The true working America—the one that produces food and manual labor—is the one שאין לה תחליף. Even bleeding-heart high-tech people need to eat, and they themselves are afraid of manual labor.
For some reason the option to comment on the column is blocked, so I’m commenting here—
You threw the KKK into your descriptions of Trump. It is worth noting that historically, the party of the KKK is the Democratic Party. This is easy to verify by cross-checking lists of known KKK activists with lists of prominent Democratic politicians. So much so that Clinton said at the funeral of a southern Democratic politician that “Democrats should not be angry about his membership in the KKK; in his day, that was the way to advance in the Democratic Party” (!)
And if we’re on the subject of Nancy Pelosi—her tears are not impressive. In 2017 too she said the election had been stolen from them (based on suspicions that the special prosecutor who was appointed later completely disproved). Which teaches you that the conclusion is already written in advance, and from her point of view if the Republicans are in power then apparently they stole the country from her, whether through the election or not—it is all one to her.
I didn’t understand. Here you are commenting on the column.
As for your words, you smuggled in a historically irrelevant remark here, and I did not understand why it touches on the discussion. It seems to me that you did not either.
And apropos “Balfour”—
Actually Netanyahu faithfully represents Western values, which encourage free enterprise. His files testify to this trend.
In Case 1000 it is told of his activity to extend the tax exemption for returning residents, which would have made it easier for émigrés to bring back to Israel their economic activity, and of his activity to encourage a “free trade zone” in the Jordan Valley, which would have brought economic development to the region—things that characterize Netanyahu’s activity to encourage investment and investors.
Case 4000 tells of his activity to remove the blockage that prevented merging Bezeq with Yes, which would have stabilized the company’s economic situation. On the other hand, it tells there of stopping wild competition that prevents investment in infrastructure. According to CEO Filber, he suggested not immediately pressing to open the market to competition, but rather to require Bezeq to invest in developing fiber-optic infrastructure.
Years ago, my former neighbor Roni Alsheich explained to me that privatization is not good for everything. In things that require major investment in infrastructure, such as education and transport, privatization that reduces profitability greatly reduces the ability to invest in infrastructure. This is exactly what happened with mobile phones: opening the market to wild competition led to the depletion of infrastructure. This is what Filber (according to his account, with Netanyahu’s backing) tried to do.
And in Case 2000 it is told of Netanyahu’s firm stand against the attempts of Noni Mozes and 43 Knesset members who supported him to preserve the monopoly of the left in the press and outlaw Israel Hayom, which competes economically and leans right.
It is over his activity to promote private initiative and strengthen freedom of the press that Netanyahu’s rivals fight him, frustrated by his success in “breaking the monopoly” of decades of leftist rule, as it is written: “Mapai shall reign in Zion… and dwell forever” :).
So who represents Western values—Netanyahu or his rivals?
With blessings, Ben-Zion Yochanan Corinaldi-Radzky
So, who said one shouldn’t give a platform to the opinion that one shouldn’t give everything a platform?
Changing another person’s position comes after letting the other person speak.
On the issue of the power of the networks to censor, in my opinion the solution is not regulation but using several means under different ownership for conveying information and opinions (for example, if social networks are a central tool for you, then use Facebook, Twitter, and one of the smaller networks).
בס”ד 15 Shevat 5781
To Arik—greetings,
In my humble opinion, what is more efficient and economical, both in time and in nerves, is not to connect to three social networks, but to one or two news sites, plus one or two sites of serious discussions, open to serious people with knowledge in various and diverse fields (such as Atra Hadin). The important information for the discussions will already be supplied to you (along with suitable links) by your fellow discussants, and additional material will be supplied by Rabbi Google, may he live long, and there is no need to search for it amid endless heaps of garbage 🙂
With blessings, Samson (Steve) HaLevi Zuckerberg
I can explain more slowly— the option to comment *on the column* was not available, and therefore I commented on a comment. As you surely understand, this is not the standard way to comment on the column itself.
Regarding the remark about the KKK, you mentioned them in the context of the Republican Party (quote: “But of course the Republican side too does not keep its hands out of the dish. As for some of them (the racist parts, the gun lobby, the KKK, etc.)…”). In my humble opinion, this remark is relevant to that sentence. If you have difficulty with historical contexts (which, by the way, are very relevant today, and had you made the cross-check I mentioned you would have seen this for yourself), I can only regret that.
The remark about Nancy Pelosi indeed is not related. Since I understand that this made things difficult for you, I want to introduce you to the scrollbar. It is a small gray bar on the right side. With a little effort I am sure you will understand how useful it is for those who are not interested in irrelevant comments.
בס”ד 25 Shevat 5781 (138 years since the passing of Rabbi Israel Salanter)
It is worth pointing to the series of columns (126–131) in which R.M.D.A. proposed the distinction between “freedom” as the absence of limitations, and “liberty” as the sovereignty of a person who chooses his own path within a framework of value-based limitations.
And as Rabbi Israel Salanter stated in his “Letter of Ethics”: “Man is free in his imagination and bound in his intellect.” Life without limitation exists only in the imagination. Reality obligates a person to value-based limitations, within which he has broad room to maneuver and choose what is good for him without harming others or himself by deviating from the proper system of values.
A person has a general aspiration to be good and to be true, and sometimes this general aspiration creates the need to restrain and limit other aspirations that conflict with the values of good and truth. When a person “bends” his values before his desires, he is the opposite of a “free man.” On the contrary: he becomes “a slave to his inclination.”
True liberty comes to a person when he knows how to find the balance between his conflicting aspirations, a balance that will give a place of honor to every tendency and aspiration without allowing it to trample the values of truth, goodness, and integrity.
It seems that therefore “there is no free man except one who occupies himself with Torah.” For since the Torah is “the order of the world” (in the words of the Maharal), it gives him the power to find the proper domain and measure for all his desires and tendencies. By way of wordplay one can say that a “free man” is one who succeeds in finding the “gap,” the room to maneuver between the moral demands.
With blessings, Yifaur
I just remembered this interview with Amnon Lord (a former leftist like Gadi Taub) that I read a few months ago. In the middle of the article he more or less inadvertently explains quite well that it is not really possible to have discourse with leftists.
https://www.makorrishon.co.il/magazine/268609/
In such a situation I say that if one must and is forced to be in their company, one may tactically lie to them (one must not lie to oneself) if it is intended to preserve a person’s independent critical faculty so as not to be swept along by this society of falsehood (where opinions and beliefs are not measured by how well they correspond to reality but by their belonging to the “right opinions” and above all to be part of the “right people”—cultured, educated, articulate, and verbal (and I permit myself to add—fake, autistic, glazed and opaque in expression, eye-rollers, sanctimonious, infantile, etc.)—and in order not to succumb to the enormous social pressure of everyone with whom it comes into contact. (The prime example, of course, is their influence on Rabbi Michi regarding Netanyahu and Trump. For from their standpoint, the mark of being in contact with their company of coveted status is that this is how one must think about them and that “no person of sound mind would disagree, etc.” It doesn’t matter that they can invent some of these things without even being aware of it.)
Why has the value of truth suddenly become important to Rabbi Michi? When the left has been acting this way for years (see the books “Workshop for Consciousness Engineering” and “The Bagatz Party,” which recently came out), we did not hear a word from you. When the right began to fight back with the same tools, suddenly you call on it to be “the sucker for truth”? I am actually convinced that you do not call on the left to do the same because you know that it is impossible to talk to them at all. And it is very suspicious that you too speak from a position (probably unconsciously—the influence of the left-wing environment). The position of taking the wind out of people’s sails (and not merely cooling enthusiasm—that is actually fine). In this you do join this group that tries to fight the spirit of the Jewish people living in the Land and wishing to remain a people.
In fact what I am saying is that one’s position is very important to the question whether I conduct a discussion with a person or not. I need to know whether he loves me, hates me, or is indifferent to my fate (and then to know what his interests are). With someone who hates me, I have no need at all to listen and deal with him. And one must not do so. His motivation from the outset is to lower my spirits, and for that all means are legitimate in his eyes (does the rabbi listen to Al Jazeera?). He will mainly tell a partial truth (frame the story), which is always worse than a blatant lie. And sometimes he will lie in the small details in order to create an atmosphere. With someone who loves me (really, someone sufficiently sharing my fate) it is possible to speak, and then criticism and discussion with him are important. A person who is indifferent to my fate is someone who will try to achieve some interest for himself, and one can listen to him, but one must exercise critical judgment as to what he wants to achieve (he is a kind of salesman; he will say that his interest also coincides with mine) and to what extent that biases his judgment.
The feeling today is that the democratic postmodern left (worldwide in general) hates the right. Therefore one must not come into contact with it at all, and certainly not argue with it about various people like Trump and Bibi. The aim of the people on the left is to lower and take away the spirit of those who believe in the Jewish people and the building of the land (forgive the inflated rhetoric, but there is something real here). The hatred of Bibi is only because he is the leader of the right (regardless of his deeds altogether); Bennett and Sa’ar too will get a share of the venom if they try to realize right-wing policy, and certainly if they succeed. At the moment they are tools in the hands of the left for the purpose of toppling the right (the salami method). If the rabbi wants to join with these people, that is his choice—he should just be aware of what he is doing. At least so that he can repent when the moment of truth arrives.
Social networks are only an example; if you prefer forums, it is worth knowing several forums with different owners (and hosts, if they are an offshoot of a larger site).
Likewise for Google, it is worth knowing additional engines such as duckduckgo.
בס”ד 30 Shevat 5781 (the 217th anniversary of Kant)
Against the attempts to silence those who express unusual opinions, Rabbi Amichai Eliyahu writes in his article “Not to Be Silent in the Face of Silencing” (on the Arutz 7 website), for not infrequently the opinion considered delusional contains genuine criticism of mistaken conventions. But even when the words are completely baseless—the criticism itself obligates “the system” to reexamine again and again both its very method and its ways of explaining things to the public. The public is not stupid, and with precise and well-founded explanation—the truth will ultimately prevail.
With blessings, Menashe Fishel Zochmir
Michi speaks, among other things, in favor of “integrity and intelligence,” but note how he expressed himself in one of his columns (a quote from column 290) against the Haredim*, when he announced that he understands why pogroms broke out against the Jews of Eastern Europe in the 19th century:
“If we were in 19th-century Russia or Ukraine, in my opinion massacres and pogroms would break out here. Suddenly I’m beginning to understand how that happened then (and I don’t quite understand how it isn’t happening today).”
So much integrity and intelligence here . . .
*Of course everyone supports criticizing the Haredim, but the question is what kind of criticism.