Thanks for addressing the question of why you put up with such ugly expressions of hostility against you on your own site. Your explanation only confirms and amplifies my respect for you. Keep up the good work!
I guess it's all part of the rough and tumble of the world.
Are you going to convince anyone?
Maybe not. But what this Blog, and others like it, have done in the last few years is coalesce opinion across the World, so that those thinking along the same or similar lines to you, are becoming aware that they are not the only one with such a view.
Since you refer to Sharks in the title of your post, I couldn't resist the urge to mention what I recently heard on UK Radio about a Biodiversity Study on identifying different types of Sharks in waters around the UK:
"So far, we have identified 3 types of Sharks, the Dog Shark, the Ray, and I think we need a bigger boat".
“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
"It demonstrates that these people either represent a culture that doesn’t care much about bein adam l’chavero, or that they are extraordinarily triggered by what I write - which likely means that they are insecure about their own positions and perhaps deep down they fear that I am correct."
Allow me to apprise you of some other possible reasons that bring these commenters:
1. Being that this blog, even by the admission of its host, is dedicated to vitriol and slander against an entire community, it's only natural that people from said community will come and fight back. So, I know you like to play victim (as you've been a victim in the past), but here you are in fact the aggressor and that's just the nature of the beast. People don't just roll with the punches. And for all those decent 'respectable rationalists' who are so 'horrified' by the comments section, well I guess for some reason they consider the irrationally obsessive hate-filled posts to be normal and they are just as hypocritical. I don't really frequent social media, but the behavior here seems to be the epitome of what is defined as 'woke.' Non-stop assault on traditional society and its values (or in this case traditional Torah observant Jewry), and then snowflake outrage when members of said society fight back. It's like collective narcissism.
2. The hope of showing your cool-aid drinkers the fallacy and duplicitousness of some of your arguments. For the more earnest sharks that hope is stronger and for the more cynical it's a little more jaded, but they all have at least a glimmer of hope. The problem is that in a shark tank (and these guys are not the only sharks) you can't be the nice guy, or you'll get eaten alive. But I personally still try to refrain from unprovoked ad hominem attacks.
As far as me calling you a Soneh Torah U'mitzvos, well, the context was that I was telling you that if you really hate supporting Torah learning as you were saying (despite the tremendous zechus and value that Chazal ascribe to doing so) then I agree that you should not be doing it. So maybe you're not really a Soneh Torah U'mitzvos and are just pretending to be one? If so, I do apologize!
Finally, I agree it's time to ban me. What started as an outlet and some r&r for a guy who likes to argue (and even does so for a living) has devolved into a part-time job and is taking WAAYYY too much of my time.
C'mon, we all know that this is because you were totally slaughtered in the comments section of your halachic so-called "analysis" of kollel. Neither Mecharker nor I are "vicious", nor do we engage in ad hominems. Rather, we calmly and patiently expose the disinformation and ignorance of your terribly misguided posts, frequently with a much needed dose of humor. True, many times we expose your kefira, but I don't recall labeling you a "kofer", and certainly not an ugly one! You are as handsome as handsome can be. And many times, I complement you for your good posts. So banning is totally uncalled for.
By the way, was the "rabbinic couple" also horrified by your posts legitimizing hatred of Chareidim? Were they horrified by your taking advantage of the tragedy in Meron to attack the entire Chareidi society, even before the shiva was over? Or were they totally fine with that?
"No! You need to fear being bitten" - doesn't seem to represent the "No" answer in the poll. Its more like - No! You don't need to ban them. You do NOT need to fear being bitten.
I'm a regular reader, but I receive alerts through the RSS feed rather than subscribing by email. So I can't vote in the poll - but put me down on the "no" side.
I totally agree with your reasons. I think reasonable discussion about difficult subjects is vital to healthy relationships. As soon as your interlocutor feels that there is no point to discussion relationship breaks down and extremism ensues. A big problem in Israeli and world politics today. Keep up the good work!
@Rabbi & cc @your distinguished shabbos guests who will no doubt read this comment:
1- This post, and the Shabbos conversation that prompted it, are based on a logical fallacy. That being that you and your guests ARE HUMAN. A short while ago I told someone praises of his son and he brightened and gave a huge smile. But on another occasion I praised to him someone unrelated and there was no emotional rush. My praise hardly registered at all. Where's the even-handedness? But that's HUMAN nature, to feel happy/sad/etc. only in regards those that you're close to.
Your guests have a friendly and loving relationship to you. It bothers them so much that you're attacked. Why is there no mention of how commenters attack each other? Why is there no mention of people siding WITH YOU on whatever point, lacing in to YOUR OPPOSITION? Because your guests aren't acquainted with them and it's HUMAN not to care about the distant. But it isn't evenhanded. Are you prepared to ban your supporters if they speak viciously? Are you prepared to ban people commenting tangentially who speak viciously? (That would be after you and/or your guests first notice it.) Where would it end, and why should it end?
2- It's also safe to assume that your guests are ideologically close to you. Say you say that X is a myth. Your guests also think so. Comes a commenter and starts yelling. Think your guests, what's he getting excited about? How vicious. While the commenter adjusts the volume as requisite for blasphemy. Are your guests seeing things from both sides?
3- A leading Rosh Yeshiva from prewar Europe said that the various expressions of the Raavad in his glosses are precisely measured to express how incorrect, in his opinion, Rambam is. Is nothing ever worth a scream? Besides, in Yeshivahs it is accepted and expected that there should be screaming. (I'm not defending particular instances, just the idea in general.)
4- Arguments naturally escalate, (as does violence). I recommend people spend a few minutes each and every day with their spouses gently telling them their faults and their relatives' faults. Or that they/the relatives are basically good but let's not get carried away and think that they're special. Being soooo careful to stick to the truth. There won't be a kickback with (unfair!!) harsher language?
If you were thickskinned you wouldn't want revenge. Instead of viewing the Chareidim as the enemy you could have those who went against you alone be as they alone were. The fact that they could not get the Chareidim to be wall to wall against you (and I know that for a fact) is already the revenge as their goal was frustrated. You develop a thicker skin having revenge be considered mission accomplished and then going on from there. Everyone can be a work in progress on this score but it has to be tried because assuredly you will otherwise need revenge forever as you develop more and more rivalries that by now have gone beyond the Chareidi-you divide. Also making a distinction between personal and sharp philosophical disagreement is important.
Recently, I had the privilege of meeting Professor Stefan Reif (of Cairo Genizah fame at Cambridge University for many decades) when he spoke in Manchester about the Cairo Genizah (what a surprise).
Amongst the many things he said was:
"Human Nature hasn't changed over the centuries."
Reading Shlomo Dov Goitein's 6 volume series called "A Mediterranean Society", published in 1970, in which he tries to describe life in the Jewish Community in Cairo in the 11-13th Centuries, he writes:
"As soon as people of different allegiance mix closely, they discover that the invisible republic of decent men stretches beyond the barriers of religious groups, a discovery incompatible with the claim of absolute superiority of one particular group."
I suggest that this website is helping to further that aim.
Your poll needed a 3rd option: "Sometimes, in very extreme cases". Never say never.
Thanks for addressing the question of why you put up with such ugly expressions of hostility against you on your own site. Your explanation only confirms and amplifies my respect for you. Keep up the good work!
Great post.
I guess it's all part of the rough and tumble of the world.
Are you going to convince anyone?
Maybe not. But what this Blog, and others like it, have done in the last few years is coalesce opinion across the World, so that those thinking along the same or similar lines to you, are becoming aware that they are not the only one with such a view.
Since you refer to Sharks in the title of your post, I couldn't resist the urge to mention what I recently heard on UK Radio about a Biodiversity Study on identifying different types of Sharks in waters around the UK:
"So far, we have identified 3 types of Sharks, the Dog Shark, the Ray, and I think we need a bigger boat".
Breaking!! See the response to this post and the last here!
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/gourmet-shark-food
In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
“If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any other business. I do the very best I know how – the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
"It demonstrates that these people either represent a culture that doesn’t care much about bein adam l’chavero, or that they are extraordinarily triggered by what I write - which likely means that they are insecure about their own positions and perhaps deep down they fear that I am correct."
Allow me to apprise you of some other possible reasons that bring these commenters:
1. Being that this blog, even by the admission of its host, is dedicated to vitriol and slander against an entire community, it's only natural that people from said community will come and fight back. So, I know you like to play victim (as you've been a victim in the past), but here you are in fact the aggressor and that's just the nature of the beast. People don't just roll with the punches. And for all those decent 'respectable rationalists' who are so 'horrified' by the comments section, well I guess for some reason they consider the irrationally obsessive hate-filled posts to be normal and they are just as hypocritical. I don't really frequent social media, but the behavior here seems to be the epitome of what is defined as 'woke.' Non-stop assault on traditional society and its values (or in this case traditional Torah observant Jewry), and then snowflake outrage when members of said society fight back. It's like collective narcissism.
2. The hope of showing your cool-aid drinkers the fallacy and duplicitousness of some of your arguments. For the more earnest sharks that hope is stronger and for the more cynical it's a little more jaded, but they all have at least a glimmer of hope. The problem is that in a shark tank (and these guys are not the only sharks) you can't be the nice guy, or you'll get eaten alive. But I personally still try to refrain from unprovoked ad hominem attacks.
As far as me calling you a Soneh Torah U'mitzvos, well, the context was that I was telling you that if you really hate supporting Torah learning as you were saying (despite the tremendous zechus and value that Chazal ascribe to doing so) then I agree that you should not be doing it. So maybe you're not really a Soneh Torah U'mitzvos and are just pretending to be one? If so, I do apologize!
Finally, I agree it's time to ban me. What started as an outlet and some r&r for a guy who likes to argue (and even does so for a living) has devolved into a part-time job and is taking WAAYYY too much of my time.
Adios, amigos! (hopefully)
C'mon, we all know that this is because you were totally slaughtered in the comments section of your halachic so-called "analysis" of kollel. Neither Mecharker nor I are "vicious", nor do we engage in ad hominems. Rather, we calmly and patiently expose the disinformation and ignorance of your terribly misguided posts, frequently with a much needed dose of humor. True, many times we expose your kefira, but I don't recall labeling you a "kofer", and certainly not an ugly one! You are as handsome as handsome can be. And many times, I complement you for your good posts. So banning is totally uncalled for.
By the way, was the "rabbinic couple" also horrified by your posts legitimizing hatred of Chareidim? Were they horrified by your taking advantage of the tragedy in Meron to attack the entire Chareidi society, even before the shiva was over? Or were they totally fine with that?
"No! You need to fear being bitten" - doesn't seem to represent the "No" answer in the poll. Its more like - No! You don't need to ban them. You do NOT need to fear being bitten.
I object to your comparison of your haters to sharks. Sharks are lovely, intelligent creatures who probably make excellent company.
I'm a regular reader, but I receive alerts through the RSS feed rather than subscribing by email. So I can't vote in the poll - but put me down on the "no" side.
I totally agree with your reasons. I think reasonable discussion about difficult subjects is vital to healthy relationships. As soon as your interlocutor feels that there is no point to discussion relationship breaks down and extremism ensues. A big problem in Israeli and world politics today. Keep up the good work!
Breaking News:
Man accuses a whole segment of Jewish society of being the worst thing to happen to Judaism. Then he gets upset when members of group argue back.
@Rabbi & cc @your distinguished shabbos guests who will no doubt read this comment:
1- This post, and the Shabbos conversation that prompted it, are based on a logical fallacy. That being that you and your guests ARE HUMAN. A short while ago I told someone praises of his son and he brightened and gave a huge smile. But on another occasion I praised to him someone unrelated and there was no emotional rush. My praise hardly registered at all. Where's the even-handedness? But that's HUMAN nature, to feel happy/sad/etc. only in regards those that you're close to.
Your guests have a friendly and loving relationship to you. It bothers them so much that you're attacked. Why is there no mention of how commenters attack each other? Why is there no mention of people siding WITH YOU on whatever point, lacing in to YOUR OPPOSITION? Because your guests aren't acquainted with them and it's HUMAN not to care about the distant. But it isn't evenhanded. Are you prepared to ban your supporters if they speak viciously? Are you prepared to ban people commenting tangentially who speak viciously? (That would be after you and/or your guests first notice it.) Where would it end, and why should it end?
2- It's also safe to assume that your guests are ideologically close to you. Say you say that X is a myth. Your guests also think so. Comes a commenter and starts yelling. Think your guests, what's he getting excited about? How vicious. While the commenter adjusts the volume as requisite for blasphemy. Are your guests seeing things from both sides?
3- A leading Rosh Yeshiva from prewar Europe said that the various expressions of the Raavad in his glosses are precisely measured to express how incorrect, in his opinion, Rambam is. Is nothing ever worth a scream? Besides, in Yeshivahs it is accepted and expected that there should be screaming. (I'm not defending particular instances, just the idea in general.)
4- Arguments naturally escalate, (as does violence). I recommend people spend a few minutes each and every day with their spouses gently telling them their faults and their relatives' faults. Or that they/the relatives are basically good but let's not get carried away and think that they're special. Being soooo careful to stick to the truth. There won't be a kickback with (unfair!!) harsher language?
If you were thickskinned you wouldn't want revenge. Instead of viewing the Chareidim as the enemy you could have those who went against you alone be as they alone were. The fact that they could not get the Chareidim to be wall to wall against you (and I know that for a fact) is already the revenge as their goal was frustrated. You develop a thicker skin having revenge be considered mission accomplished and then going on from there. Everyone can be a work in progress on this score but it has to be tried because assuredly you will otherwise need revenge forever as you develop more and more rivalries that by now have gone beyond the Chareidi-you divide. Also making a distinction between personal and sharp philosophical disagreement is important.
Problem is not rationalists vs non-rationalists, but with certain commentators dominating the discussion.
Limit people to three comments per day.
And expect civility, whether or not your critics consider your post uncivil. It's your blog and you get to decide, not them.
Recently, I had the privilege of meeting Professor Stefan Reif (of Cairo Genizah fame at Cambridge University for many decades) when he spoke in Manchester about the Cairo Genizah (what a surprise).
Amongst the many things he said was:
"Human Nature hasn't changed over the centuries."
Reading Shlomo Dov Goitein's 6 volume series called "A Mediterranean Society", published in 1970, in which he tries to describe life in the Jewish Community in Cairo in the 11-13th Centuries, he writes:
"As soon as people of different allegiance mix closely, they discover that the invisible republic of decent men stretches beyond the barriers of religious groups, a discovery incompatible with the claim of absolute superiority of one particular group."
I suggest that this website is helping to further that aim.