UPDATE: CLARIFICATION: Some people misunderstood this post as a criticism of Avromi Perkowski, the person highlighted on the cover of Mishpacha. Nothing could have been further from my intention - he does wonderful chessed at no charge. My criticism was for Mishpacha using this as their cover story, which Mr. Perkowski himself tells me he did not want.
I'm not sure which aliens you are talking about, but I see some aliens who, instead of encouraging achdus, decide to make the entire war about their petty feuds with the people they hate (much more than Hamas, apparently).
Even for somebody who doesn't want to encourage achdus, suppose he doesn't believe in Hashem but nevertheless who cares about the war, he would have many articles about the soldiers themselves, about the soldier's families, about the commanders, about the military technology, about the evils of Hamas, about many other critical aspects of the war. Somebody who does believe in Hashem would have much more of focus on subjects of Emunah and Bitachon in the war.
But when 99% of your articles are obsessively focused on *one* thing and *one* thing only, then it's quite obvious who the alien is.
There's plenty of people writing about the other things. And there's plenty of people writing my kind of things in the Hebrew-speaking world. I'm filling a gap in the English-speaking world - exposing the false view of "achdus" that people such as yourself try to scam others with.
There was nothing rude about his comment to justify banning him. He's filling in a gap just like you, the gap of English speakers who respond in kind to your smearing of the chareidi community.
Sorry, but I have been an avid follower of letters to the editor since I was six years old. Slifkin's critiques of the haredi community, of which he was once part, are expressed with a civility and lucidity that seem to escape his critics. Why are they so hypersensitive? This fascinates me.
You should see the charedi sites, where almost every thread includes someone hyperventilating that such criticism of the gedolim shouldn't be allowed on this site and should be deleted. They're like the woke snowflakes.
I was discussing Ban Ki-moons comment, and how it wasn't rude and should not be grounds for a ban. However many letters to the editor you have followed and whatever you think of Rabbi Slifkins civility and lucidity, Ban Ki-moons comment was no less civil or lucid.
I am curious as to what qualifies you to speak authoritatively about God, unity or faith. We, as a people, are being challenged - what else is relevant? We have enemies who want to kill us - is anything else as important?
Sorry Banny, you and your ideas are very strange and foreign (alien) to me. (Are you an alien?)
As to where I am coming from. My semicha is from a 'black hat' yeshiva.
I live in America and I am Chareidi so naturally I am very removed from this war. But at least my rabbeim never let us forget. The tehilim in my yeshiva is still strong, unlike in many other places where it turned into an ashrei. And they send constant reminders about how we must not forget about those in Israel who are truly suffering/giving up their lives. And while yes,I may never fully appreciate the pain I am not part of, I work on that as an avoda and I try my best. This is the klal yisroel I love, not the petty, calloused individuals who make don't make this one of their priorities.
Of the two roshei yeshiva, one encouraged and one at least allowed (seems he wasn't sure that it would make a dent hishtadlus wise, never had the chance to ask him why). A bus of guys went from yeshiva, and a bunch of alumni went from their respective places.
Yes, in chu'l the attitude is very different. Nothing to do with estranging wealthy donors, or the look and feel living amongst not as religious Jews. That's just me being cynical.
Please ban commentators who think this blog is THEIR home, where they reside continuously, waiting to pounce on whatever and whomever they do not like and where they think that THEY (not the actual home owner ie. blog owner) will determine its content and do so in the most obnoxious, vicious, personal, and arrogant fashion.
This person was being rude with his username and deserved to be banned. But if a bunch of neonazis held a conference in a hotel about the Jewish problem and Jewish protesters broke in and stopped the conference, they would be cheered as heroes. By other Jewish people, I mean, not by the neonazis.
Let's say, Yeshivishe people breaking in to stop an OU convention or Modern Orthodox breaking in to stop an Agudah Convention?
And just as the Agudah can refuse the floor to those who disrupt their convention and insult their leadership and members, so can Slifkin refuse the floor to those who disrupt his blog (overwhelm the comments section) and insult him, his readers, and his community.
Free speech is limited in academia. It is in fact the responsibility of academics to determine what is within the bounds of acceptability for their field. You wouldn't want medical schools to be teaching future doctors snake oil remedies, would you? And I hope you wouldn't want your yeshiva to welcome a Christian missionary to come speak to all the students about why Jesus is God.
Yeah, but unfortunately that excuse is increasingly used to ease out real science and ease in quackery. Did you see that performance from UCLA Medical?
When one person has a blog, with many people commenting and wanting to promote free discussion, it's unethical to dominate the comments section with intimidating personal attacks on the blog owner and on commentators sympathetic to his perspective.
Who was dominating the comments section? I didn't notice Slifkin opponents dominating the comments section more than his allies. When there is a long back and forth between an opponent and an ally, it that called dominating the comments section? I don't think so. Were the opponents being intimidating? Were the attacks too personal? Maybe on a different blog. But this blog is dedicated to attacking chareidim, so considering that, these are the types of responses to be expected.
It is not like a home. It is more like a neonazi conference held in a hotel where they are giving speeches about how evil the Jews are. If some Jewish protesters forced their way into to the conference room a interrupted the conference they could be charged with trespassing but, they would be cheered as heroes by the Jewish community and likely everybody who is not a neonazi.
Let's say, Yeshivishe people breaking in to stop an OU convention or Modern Orthodox breaking in to stop an Agudah Convention?
And just as the Agudah can refuse the floor to those who disrupt their convention and insult their leadership and members, so can Slifkin refuse the floor to those who disrupt his blog (overwhelm the comments section) and insult him, his readers, and his community.
I gave a donation to the museum as my way of replying to the absolute jerks among your critics. They are a vile bunch, and I agree that you should ban them; let them poison the air elsewhere.
Banning is essentially a form of censorship. While most of these critical jerks raise my ire and blood pressure, I am not sure that they should be censored. Perhaps restricting them to just one or, at most two, comments would be enough.
If we were holding a live meeting and these folks came in and yelled their idiocies at us, we'd be perfectly within our rights to ban them. Rabbi Slifkin is under no obligation to continue offering them a forum.
The people who black out women's and female children's faces cause both short term and long term damage to our precious society. In their efforts for "spiritual purity" they demonize and sexualize females while generating layers of confusion-bordering-on-Avodah-Zarah. The term "Ain Somchin Al HaNess" is a key principle for Jewish life and navigating complex realities. Any individual or publication that relies upon or advocates for "magical thinking" or apocalyptic messianism represents a real threat to Israel and the Jewish People.
Different alien life forms in different countries. Here in the US, the aliens are those who think that it is possible to reason with the leadership of Russia, Iran, and/or Hamas.
So many people really cannot conceive that there are serious cultural differences. I think this is reinforced by a certain kind of good intentions that slides into wishful thinking.
Yes indeed. A philosopher I know, Benedict Beckeld, recently wrote an excellent piece on this. I thought of it recently when a group of pure souls decided to hand dates out to Muslims coming off the Har HaBayit after Ramadan prayers, and a bunch of other pure souls (all these pure souls seem to come out of Har Etzion) decided to applaud them. Because, you know, deep down we're all alike.
The fact that Islam, as a religion, is linked to conquest and violence, does not mean that there are not individuals and sub-groups within Islam that we can improve relations with.
For most of its history, Christianity didn't consider Judaism to be a Western religion. This continued right up to 1945. Christianity has arguably had a much bloodier history than Islam.
That makes no difference. Beckeld is a Jewish philosopher living in 2024, not a Christian theologian living in 1300.
And in any event, no, Christianity always considered Judaism different from all other religions. There were Christians, there were pagans/heathens/barbarians (including Muslims), there were Jews. Maybe that's one reason it *was* so bloody.
More Jews were killed by Christians in the name of God than members of any other non-Christian religion. We were indeed singled out for special treatment. That attitude didn't really change much until the second half of the 20th century.
We don't appreciate George Washington's famous letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island sufficiently. No Christian head of state had ever written such a thing. And Washington wasn't just head of state, he was a prominent Anglican lay leader. Today we can give thanks that there are more Christian leaders like Washington than there were like his contemporary Catherine the Great of Russia. But there is still a lot of Christian anti-Semitism, particularly among Protestants.
Well, "famous" it might be, but consensus is that, like many of Biden's stories, it never happened. (Come on, we all know Biden has a somewhat loose relationship with the truth. I was politically aware in 1987.)
But the deeper point is still true: Putin simply has a different mindset than good Western liberals. (I mean "liberal" in the classical sense here.) And you know what? I don't know if Putin would really get 90% of the vote if he didn't rig elections. But I have no problem believing that he might well have the support, warm if not hot, of, say, 65% of the Russian people. Just like I have no problem believing that a large majority of Palestinians actually do support Hamas, or that at least a very significant number of Iranian support the mullahs, or that a lot of people in Ukraine prefer Russia (or did until they invaded), or that a lot of black Americans think OJ is guilty *and* that he should have gotten off.
The news gets a lot of things wrong, not least because they can't break out of their preconceptions. If only the stupidity didn't lead to so many deaths.
Yes, more people believe Putin's claim that it never happened, than believe Biden. That alone points out a huge problem. But even if you believe the Russian rasha, it shows that Biden absolutely understands Putin. That is much more important than his gaffes. (Which have been commonplace for over 50 years -- he has always been a terrible public speaker. He happened to have been fortunate to have had most of his career in the one state without its own television station; he is a great one on one campaigner.)
Until the moment you said this I had no idea what Putin said about it, and I don't care what Putin said about it. I just have a natural tendency to disbelieve any story Biden tells. (And of course anything Putin says, but in a very different, more serious, way.)
As to whether Biden really had some chidush here...he first told this story *after* Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time, and *after* Putin did lots of other horrible things. Sure, he claimed he had said it three years earlier, but see above.
I am not nearly as sanguine as you about someone who seems incapable of telling the truth. And as I said, this is nothing new. Neil Kinnock ring a bell?
The video in that first piece is very troubling. The crowd is led to chant "Death to America" without knowing what they're even saying...and when they find out, they cheer.
"I write posts about genuine life-and-death issues and how to come to terms with them, but these people completely ignore the topic, and instead obsess over such things as whether the girl murdered by terrorists had a neckline that was too low, or whether a moving song about living in a war features a few words here and there sung by women and are sexually provocative, or try to distract the discussion in other ways."
1) To put this plainly, if the only thing or even the main thing you wrote about was how to deal with trauma, I think you would get a lot less trolling. That's not a justification or a condemnation of the trolls' behavior. It's simply (what I believe is) the reality. Also, 2) no one forces you to have a freewheeling comment section. You can (and do) post things where only paid subscribers can comment. 3) In general, I believe Substack is becoming more and more social media like. That means that point 1 may become less true as time goes on.
"They use phrases like “sacrificing one’s life” to refer to their sitting safely in a comfortable room indulging in intellectual pursuits, while in my world the phrase refers to people who are ready to actually sacrifice their actual life and sometimes actually do."
When you live a life insulated from reality, your little things become big things, kind of like a child's world. In many ways, they exist in an infantile society, which is reflected in their childish cultural vocabulary.
In Israel, it certainly feels on the ground like there is an alien population that lives here in an alternate reality. Gaza may as well be Mars, there's a war being fought by "other people", and the most pressing concern is how to spend Bein Hazmanim.
UPDATE: CLARIFICATION: Some people misunderstood this post as a criticism of Avromi Perkowski, the person highlighted on the cover of Mishpacha. Nothing could have been further from my intention - he does wonderful chessed at no charge. My criticism was for Mishpacha using this as their cover story, which Mr. Perkowski himself tells me he did not want.
What it should say: "UPDATE: CLARIFICATION: I'm just a psychopathy with a psychotic obsession about chareidim! Over and out!"
I'm not sure which aliens you are talking about, but I see some aliens who, instead of encouraging achdus, decide to make the entire war about their petty feuds with the people they hate (much more than Hamas, apparently).
Even for somebody who doesn't want to encourage achdus, suppose he doesn't believe in Hashem but nevertheless who cares about the war, he would have many articles about the soldiers themselves, about the soldier's families, about the commanders, about the military technology, about the evils of Hamas, about many other critical aspects of the war. Somebody who does believe in Hashem would have much more of focus on subjects of Emunah and Bitachon in the war.
But when 99% of your articles are obsessively focused on *one* thing and *one* thing only, then it's quite obvious who the alien is.
There's plenty of people writing about the other things. And there's plenty of people writing my kind of things in the Hebrew-speaking world. I'm filling a gap in the English-speaking world - exposing the false view of "achdus" that people such as yourself try to scam others with.
There was nothing rude about his comment to justify banning him. He's filling in a gap just like you, the gap of English speakers who respond in kind to your smearing of the chareidi community.
Sorry, but I have been an avid follower of letters to the editor since I was six years old. Slifkin's critiques of the haredi community, of which he was once part, are expressed with a civility and lucidity that seem to escape his critics. Why are they so hypersensitive? This fascinates me.
You should see the charedi sites, where almost every thread includes someone hyperventilating that such criticism of the gedolim shouldn't be allowed on this site and should be deleted. They're like the woke snowflakes.
I was discussing Ban Ki-moons comment, and how it wasn't rude and should not be grounds for a ban. However many letters to the editor you have followed and whatever you think of Rabbi Slifkins civility and lucidity, Ban Ki-moons comment was no less civil or lucid.
"Literally Hitler", sure.
I am curious as to what qualifies you to speak authoritatively about God, unity or faith. We, as a people, are being challenged - what else is relevant? We have enemies who want to kill us - is anything else as important?
Sorry Banny, you and your ideas are very strange and foreign (alien) to me. (Are you an alien?)
As to where I am coming from. My semicha is from a 'black hat' yeshiva.
Is this you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUlBA4GvFfw
I live in America and I am Chareidi so naturally I am very removed from this war. But at least my rabbeim never let us forget. The tehilim in my yeshiva is still strong, unlike in many other places where it turned into an ashrei. And they send constant reminders about how we must not forget about those in Israel who are truly suffering/giving up their lives. And while yes,I may never fully appreciate the pain I am not part of, I work on that as an avoda and I try my best. This is the klal yisroel I love, not the petty, calloused individuals who make don't make this one of their priorities.
Did your rebbeim bring the yeshiva to the march in Washington?
Of the two roshei yeshiva, one encouraged and one at least allowed (seems he wasn't sure that it would make a dent hishtadlus wise, never had the chance to ask him why). A bus of guys went from yeshiva, and a bunch of alumni went from their respective places.
See Jerry Steinfeld writes about "The gratitude attitude"! That's the healthy attitude! Right here!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-gratitude-attitude
Exactly!!
Yes, in chu'l the attitude is very different. Nothing to do with estranging wealthy donors, or the look and feel living amongst not as religious Jews. That's just me being cynical.
Aliens are not subhuman!
How do you know that?
Please ban commentators who think this blog is THEIR home, where they reside continuously, waiting to pounce on whatever and whomever they do not like and where they think that THEY (not the actual home owner ie. blog owner) will determine its content and do so in the most obnoxious, vicious, personal, and arrogant fashion.
As in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUlBA4GvFfw
Juvenile
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUlBA4GvFfw
professor not such a free speech believer anymore? WHen its not convenient for him?
Not at all.
No right to free speech when in someone else's home.
No right to insult and bait the host.
No right to not only overstay your welcome, but to revel in staying there even though the host does not want you.
ie. Don't come back after you've been banned (told to leave) and don't gloat over having forced your way back in.
This person was being rude with his username and deserved to be banned. But if a bunch of neonazis held a conference in a hotel about the Jewish problem and Jewish protesters broke in and stopped the conference, they would be cheered as heroes. By other Jewish people, I mean, not by the neonazis.
As regard to the Jews versus neonazis, agreed.
But what if the lines were less clear.
Let's say, Yeshivishe people breaking in to stop an OU convention or Modern Orthodox breaking in to stop an Agudah Convention?
And just as the Agudah can refuse the floor to those who disrupt their convention and insult their leadership and members, so can Slifkin refuse the floor to those who disrupt his blog (overwhelm the comments section) and insult him, his readers, and his community.
Personally, no, I would not cheer the Jews.
Free speech is limited in academia. It is in fact the responsibility of academics to determine what is within the bounds of acceptability for their field. You wouldn't want medical schools to be teaching future doctors snake oil remedies, would you? And I hope you wouldn't want your yeshiva to welcome a Christian missionary to come speak to all the students about why Jesus is God.
Yeah, but unfortunately that excuse is increasingly used to ease out real science and ease in quackery. Did you see that performance from UCLA Medical?
If a person writes things about others in public, it is hardly ethical to prevent them from responding and bringing their position.
This isn't a private home, it is a public forum/
When one person has a blog, with many people commenting and wanting to promote free discussion, it's unethical to dominate the comments section with intimidating personal attacks on the blog owner and on commentators sympathetic to his perspective.
Who was dominating the comments section? I didn't notice Slifkin opponents dominating the comments section more than his allies. When there is a long back and forth between an opponent and an ally, it that called dominating the comments section? I don't think so. Were the opponents being intimidating? Were the attacks too personal? Maybe on a different blog. But this blog is dedicated to attacking chareidim, so considering that, these are the types of responses to be expected.
Too subtle?
It is not like a home. It is more like a neonazi conference held in a hotel where they are giving speeches about how evil the Jews are. If some Jewish protesters forced their way into to the conference room a interrupted the conference they could be charged with trespassing but, they would be cheered as heroes by the Jewish community and likely everybody who is not a neonazi.
As regard to the Jews versus neonazis, agreed.
But what if the lines were less clear.
Let's say, Yeshivishe people breaking in to stop an OU convention or Modern Orthodox breaking in to stop an Agudah Convention?
And just as the Agudah can refuse the floor to those who disrupt their convention and insult their leadership and members, so can Slifkin refuse the floor to those who disrupt his blog (overwhelm the comments section) and insult him, his readers, and his community.
I'm sorry, I wrote the same comment twice. I responded to your other response to my other comment.
I gave a donation to the museum as my way of replying to the absolute jerks among your critics. They are a vile bunch, and I agree that you should ban them; let them poison the air elsewhere.
That's encouraging me to keep the jerks here! Just kidding - thank you for the donation!
Banning is essentially a form of censorship. While most of these critical jerks raise my ire and blood pressure, I am not sure that they should be censored. Perhaps restricting them to just one or, at most two, comments would be enough.
If we were holding a live meeting and these folks came in and yelled their idiocies at us, we'd be perfectly within our rights to ban them. Rabbi Slifkin is under no obligation to continue offering them a forum.
I am a medical school professor and I censor quacks all the time. And you are glad that I do.
Please please ban them
I used to troll online blogs when I was 15.
Then I grew up.
It’s extremely immature and you don’t need your blog ruined by a bunch of pathetic trolls.
I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of them are 15. Or at least never matured past that point.
The people who black out women's and female children's faces cause both short term and long term damage to our precious society. In their efforts for "spiritual purity" they demonize and sexualize females while generating layers of confusion-bordering-on-Avodah-Zarah. The term "Ain Somchin Al HaNess" is a key principle for Jewish life and navigating complex realities. Any individual or publication that relies upon or advocates for "magical thinking" or apocalyptic messianism represents a real threat to Israel and the Jewish People.
Great article.
Ban them.
The same people have already been banned many times before. The problem with banning is that the same people just keep on signing up under a new name
You have to weed the garden regularly.
"Mow the lawn," eh?
The trolls are deterred.
What’s good for צה״ל is good for R Natan
Good idea. The ones that use juvenile shtiklech and name-calling. This is *your blog*.
Different alien life forms in different countries. Here in the US, the aliens are those who think that it is possible to reason with the leadership of Russia, Iran, and/or Hamas.
Hey, hey, George W. Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a good person. Plus they both had two daughters, so it was all cool.
And of course Condoleeza Rice "thought she knew" that Palestinian mothers just want their kids to go to college.
God save us from these people.
So many people really cannot conceive that there are serious cultural differences. I think this is reinforced by a certain kind of good intentions that slides into wishful thinking.
Yes indeed. A philosopher I know, Benedict Beckeld, recently wrote an excellent piece on this. I thought of it recently when a group of pure souls decided to hand dates out to Muslims coming off the Har HaBayit after Ramadan prayers, and a bunch of other pure souls (all these pure souls seem to come out of Har Etzion) decided to applaud them. Because, you know, deep down we're all alike.
https://merionwest.com/2023/12/22/islam-and-the-west-navigating-the-cultural-and-theological-divide/
The fact that Islam, as a religion, is linked to conquest and violence, does not mean that there are not individuals and sub-groups within Islam that we can improve relations with.
Indeed not! We can even improve relations with much larger groups. But we should be clear-eyed about these things. Rationalist, you know.
FWIW Christianity is even MORE linked to conquest and violence than Islam. And we work with Christians on a regular basis.
Correction: "Christianity WAS even MORE linked to conquest and violence than Islam. "
Not often does one find a comment that indulges in whataboutism and anachronism.
Interesting but long.
Hey, he's written a whole *book* on the topic.
"Judaism and Christianity are Western religions"
For most of its history, Christianity didn't consider Judaism to be a Western religion. This continued right up to 1945. Christianity has arguably had a much bloodier history than Islam.
That makes no difference. Beckeld is a Jewish philosopher living in 2024, not a Christian theologian living in 1300.
And in any event, no, Christianity always considered Judaism different from all other religions. There were Christians, there were pagans/heathens/barbarians (including Muslims), there were Jews. Maybe that's one reason it *was* so bloody.
More Jews were killed by Christians in the name of God than members of any other non-Christian religion. We were indeed singled out for special treatment. That attitude didn't really change much until the second half of the 20th century.
We don't appreciate George Washington's famous letter to the Jews of Newport, Rhode Island sufficiently. No Christian head of state had ever written such a thing. And Washington wasn't just head of state, he was a prominent Anglican lay leader. Today we can give thanks that there are more Christian leaders like Washington than there were like his contemporary Catherine the Great of Russia. But there is still a lot of Christian anti-Semitism, particularly among Protestants.
#SamHarris
Biden famously looked into Putin's eyes and told Putin that he had no soul. Putin told Biden that Biden was correct.
Sadly there are still a lot of people who think Bush was right and Biden wrong.
Well, "famous" it might be, but consensus is that, like many of Biden's stories, it never happened. (Come on, we all know Biden has a somewhat loose relationship with the truth. I was politically aware in 1987.)
But the deeper point is still true: Putin simply has a different mindset than good Western liberals. (I mean "liberal" in the classical sense here.) And you know what? I don't know if Putin would really get 90% of the vote if he didn't rig elections. But I have no problem believing that he might well have the support, warm if not hot, of, say, 65% of the Russian people. Just like I have no problem believing that a large majority of Palestinians actually do support Hamas, or that at least a very significant number of Iranian support the mullahs, or that a lot of people in Ukraine prefer Russia (or did until they invaded), or that a lot of black Americans think OJ is guilty *and* that he should have gotten off.
The news gets a lot of things wrong, not least because they can't break out of their preconceptions. If only the stupidity didn't lead to so many deaths.
good comment.
Yes, more people believe Putin's claim that it never happened, than believe Biden. That alone points out a huge problem. But even if you believe the Russian rasha, it shows that Biden absolutely understands Putin. That is much more important than his gaffes. (Which have been commonplace for over 50 years -- he has always been a terrible public speaker. He happened to have been fortunate to have had most of his career in the one state without its own television station; he is a great one on one campaigner.)
Until the moment you said this I had no idea what Putin said about it, and I don't care what Putin said about it. I just have a natural tendency to disbelieve any story Biden tells. (And of course anything Putin says, but in a very different, more serious, way.)
As to whether Biden really had some chidush here...he first told this story *after* Russia invaded Ukraine for the first time, and *after* Putin did lots of other horrible things. Sure, he claimed he had said it three years earlier, but see above.
I am not nearly as sanguine as you about someone who seems incapable of telling the truth. And as I said, this is nothing new. Neil Kinnock ring a bell?
Biden told the truth about the fact that Putin has no soul. I guess you don't believe him.
"Y'know, Joey..."
Ah, right, took me a second to remember that one.
As John Podhoretz said, "That's Biden's "tell"."
There is a subset that (think they?) actually agree with those governments.
https://www.thefp.com/p/american-anti-war-activists-cheer
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4465352-tucker-carlson-moscow-putin/
The video in that first piece is very troubling. The crowd is led to chant "Death to America" without knowing what they're even saying...and when they find out, they cheer.
I know. Really chiling.
I sadly agree but I can not click "like".
"I write posts about genuine life-and-death issues and how to come to terms with them, but these people completely ignore the topic, and instead obsess over such things as whether the girl murdered by terrorists had a neckline that was too low, or whether a moving song about living in a war features a few words here and there sung by women and are sexually provocative, or try to distract the discussion in other ways."
1) To put this plainly, if the only thing or even the main thing you wrote about was how to deal with trauma, I think you would get a lot less trolling. That's not a justification or a condemnation of the trolls' behavior. It's simply (what I believe is) the reality. Also, 2) no one forces you to have a freewheeling comment section. You can (and do) post things where only paid subscribers can comment. 3) In general, I believe Substack is becoming more and more social media like. That means that point 1 may become less true as time goes on.
"They use phrases like “sacrificing one’s life” to refer to their sitting safely in a comfortable room indulging in intellectual pursuits, while in my world the phrase refers to people who are ready to actually sacrifice their actual life and sometimes actually do."
When you live a life insulated from reality, your little things become big things, kind of like a child's world. In many ways, they exist in an infantile society, which is reflected in their childish cultural vocabulary.
Very good point. Does it make anyone else's skin crawl when they refer to legal adults as "boys and girls"?
To be fair, soldiers are referred to as "boys" as well, but that's an entirely different context- pretty much the opposite one.
Of course, in much of Orthodoxy, anyone unmarried is a "boy" or "girl" as well.
And for an additional illustration, just read the comments here from the people potentially to be banned . . .
Don't ban them, their comments only prove your point.
They do, but they also foster hatred towards the idiots who post the utter nonsense.
In Israel, it certainly feels on the ground like there is an alien population that lives here in an alternate reality. Gaza may as well be Mars, there's a war being fought by "other people", and the most pressing concern is how to spend Bein Hazmanim.
It's really unfathomable.
Don't ban them
The most effective way to prove that Haredi society is messed up is to read the comments that they make here on this blog.
It's even, forgive me, more effective than your well-reasoned posts.
Let the world see what these people really thunk.
Yes, please do not include irrelevant comments. Thank you for your insights.