Insulting people for their appearance, instead of arguing ideas, is a very low tactic. Anti Semitic? I don’t see the connection between insulting someone as ugly and specific hatred such as anti-Semite. Adding a swastica to the start of the article was uncalled for. Due to lack of any example of his target being anti-Semite, Douglas Murr…
Insulting people for their appearance, instead of arguing ideas, is a very low tactic. Anti Semitic? I don’t see the connection between insulting someone as ugly and specific hatred such as anti-Semite. Adding a swastica to the start of the article was uncalled for. Due to lack of any example of his target being anti-Semite, Douglas Murray now has 0 credibility to me. His target might even legitimately sue him for libel and defamation. Mr. Murray would then be hard pressed to explain his justification for the accusation. A justification entirely absent in his article. His target acted like a rude jerk. As some who has been personally insulted for my large nose, I would never have considered that to be anti-Semite. (I’m not Jewish)
Take out the false claims of anti-semitism, this could almost be a good article.
The error is so glaring, it indicates a Mrs. Weis has a big blind spot.
The problem here is that there's a very long, very well-documented, and very ugly history of people with antisemitic viewpoints using the word 'physiognomy' when attacking people with names like Rothschild. It's as bad as using the words 'Jewish' and 'international monetary conspiracy' in the same sentence. What educated person is unaware of this history? Douglas Murray is clearly aware of this history, hence the essay. Bari is simply pointing out the blindingly obvious, which simply shouldn't be necessary, but given many of the the responses to this post, clearly is nonetheless. Too many people today, both right and left, are all too willing to play with such rhetorical fire. We should certainly expect more from someone with the credentials of Mr. Gonzalez.
We can pretend that twitter doesn't matter, and that incendiary tweets are irrelevant (or not at all incendiary), just as we can downplay the significance of antisemitic rhetoric when it's right in front of our noses, but we do so at our own peril.
Twitter is where mobs are organized and cancellations are carried out. I'm not on Twitter because I know that it's a cesspool, and because I know that expressing my opinions on a variety of issues there could easily cost me my job in the nonprofit world, which is increasingly ruled by far-left ideologues. As means of amassing certain sorts of power, and using that power to achieve various ends in the real world, Twitter matters. Words, and their history, matter.
The link between calling someone ugly and being antisemitic was the use of the word "physiognomy". Physiognomy as defined by the Oxford dictionary connects a persons physical traits to their ethnicity. Gonzalez was not just calling them ugly, he was calling them ugly Jews specifically.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I'm afraid sly Google pulled a fast one on me, but it does present an odd question: how come the definition Google presents for "physiognomy" is different than the one Oxford presents when Google's definition finding engine is powered and supported by Oxford? I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that when Google cited their provided definition of "physiognomy" as coming from Oxford Languages, that it would he the same definition provided by Oxford. But they are not. So maybe my point was not as sound as I thought.
For the record, the definition provided by Google (who claims it is from Oxford Languages, whatever that means) is: a person's facial features or expression, especially when regarded as indicative of character or ethnic origin
Physiognomy definition = the supposed art of judging character from facial characteristics.
Since Rothschild was known for his wealth, privilege and smugness (and better know for these than for his religion) then I think it is reasonable to assume the author was referring to these qualities. It was an insulting comment - but it is surely a rush to judgment to believe it was meant as an antisemitic slur. Not to say it was not meant as such a slur - but unless you can show a clear history or a way to get inside the author's head -- you cannot reasonably say it was antisemitic.
Yeah, it's interesting. But if you just do a general search of physiognomy, Wikipedia and other places, the general emphasis seems to be more on tying personality to appearance, and less about tying ethnicity to appearance (isn't that "phenotype"?). But it's not completely unrelated either.
Phenotype is a genetic term that describes the expression of a gene (e.g. the gene for brown hair causing a person to have brown hair). Ethnicity is a combination of ancestry (genetic) and cultural upbringing (society).
The leap from "personality" to "ethnicity" is a big one, but not an insurmountable one. After all, both a persons ancestry and the culture they grow up in contribute greatly to their personality.
No I agree, the leap is not insurmountable, my point would be more that it's not inevitable or inherent, i.e. discussing the relationship between a person's appearance and their character, even if that person appears to be Jewish based on their name, is not inherently anti-Semitic. But it could be . . . it just doesn't have to be. Murray is presenting it as though this is incontrovertible anti-Semitism, and I don't see that. It's facially neutral, arguably anti-Semitic, like nearly every other example of alleged bigotry in 2022.
Agreed. And that's where this being an opinion article comes in. I'm assuming the author has a deeper background on antisemitism than I do, since all I have to go off is what I learned in grade school (which was simply that it was everywhere and it was the cool thing to do until the Nazi's came). Several commenters have mentioned that the term "physiognomy" has a history of antisemitic expression, which is beyond my knowledge.
True. The swastika was just inflammatory. It is an attempt to trigger an emotional reaction - perhaps because the author had to stretch so hard to try to make a case that this was an example of antisemitism. Maybe it is antisemitism. But it is ambiguous at best.
But please consider that many of the articles from the left attacking the right on anti Semitism have either a reference to either white supremacy or a swastika. In my experience, the left can’t make the attacks any other way than inflammatory. But it is still wrong.
Or, he was referencing a look of wealth / privileged. I'm not saying it was not antisemitic. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it was a failed attempt to be clever. But it surely is ambiguous. There are so many unambiguous cases of antisemitism - such that it seems the author's point was not so much to call out antisemitism as to find any way to smear someone on the right with the charge of antisemitism - no matter how hard they had to stretch to make the case.
I just don't see how calling someone ugly using long words is anything more than boorish. Don't you remember when Al Gore called George W. Bush "missing a chromosome?"
Insulting people for their appearance, instead of arguing ideas, is a very low tactic. Anti Semitic? I don’t see the connection between insulting someone as ugly and specific hatred such as anti-Semite. Adding a swastica to the start of the article was uncalled for. Due to lack of any example of his target being anti-Semite, Douglas Murray now has 0 credibility to me. His target might even legitimately sue him for libel and defamation. Mr. Murray would then be hard pressed to explain his justification for the accusation. A justification entirely absent in his article. His target acted like a rude jerk. As some who has been personally insulted for my large nose, I would never have considered that to be anti-Semite. (I’m not Jewish)
Take out the false claims of anti-semitism, this could almost be a good article.
The error is so glaring, it indicates a Mrs. Weis has a big blind spot.
Just call it Jew Hate and you will clearly see it Adolf.
The problem here is that there's a very long, very well-documented, and very ugly history of people with antisemitic viewpoints using the word 'physiognomy' when attacking people with names like Rothschild. It's as bad as using the words 'Jewish' and 'international monetary conspiracy' in the same sentence. What educated person is unaware of this history? Douglas Murray is clearly aware of this history, hence the essay. Bari is simply pointing out the blindingly obvious, which simply shouldn't be necessary, but given many of the the responses to this post, clearly is nonetheless. Too many people today, both right and left, are all too willing to play with such rhetorical fire. We should certainly expect more from someone with the credentials of Mr. Gonzalez.
We can pretend that twitter doesn't matter, and that incendiary tweets are irrelevant (or not at all incendiary), just as we can downplay the significance of antisemitic rhetoric when it's right in front of our noses, but we do so at our own peril.
Twitter is where mobs are organized and cancellations are carried out. I'm not on Twitter because I know that it's a cesspool, and because I know that expressing my opinions on a variety of issues there could easily cost me my job in the nonprofit world, which is increasingly ruled by far-left ideologues. As means of amassing certain sorts of power, and using that power to achieve various ends in the real world, Twitter matters. Words, and their history, matter.
The link between calling someone ugly and being antisemitic was the use of the word "physiognomy". Physiognomy as defined by the Oxford dictionary connects a persons physical traits to their ethnicity. Gonzalez was not just calling them ugly, he was calling them ugly Jews specifically.
Is this from a hard copy or something, because all that I come up with online is this:
OVERVIEW
physiognomy
QUICK REFERENCE
1. The physical appearance of one's face.
2. The assessment of someone's character or personality from their face and other external bodily features.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100325426#:~:text=1.,in%20A%20Dictionary%20of%20Dentistry%20%C2%BB
Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I'm afraid sly Google pulled a fast one on me, but it does present an odd question: how come the definition Google presents for "physiognomy" is different than the one Oxford presents when Google's definition finding engine is powered and supported by Oxford? I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that when Google cited their provided definition of "physiognomy" as coming from Oxford Languages, that it would he the same definition provided by Oxford. But they are not. So maybe my point was not as sound as I thought.
For the record, the definition provided by Google (who claims it is from Oxford Languages, whatever that means) is: a person's facial features or expression, especially when regarded as indicative of character or ethnic origin
Physiognomy definition = the supposed art of judging character from facial characteristics.
Since Rothschild was known for his wealth, privilege and smugness (and better know for these than for his religion) then I think it is reasonable to assume the author was referring to these qualities. It was an insulting comment - but it is surely a rush to judgment to believe it was meant as an antisemitic slur. Not to say it was not meant as such a slur - but unless you can show a clear history or a way to get inside the author's head -- you cannot reasonably say it was antisemitic.
Yeah, it's interesting. But if you just do a general search of physiognomy, Wikipedia and other places, the general emphasis seems to be more on tying personality to appearance, and less about tying ethnicity to appearance (isn't that "phenotype"?). But it's not completely unrelated either.
Phenotype is a genetic term that describes the expression of a gene (e.g. the gene for brown hair causing a person to have brown hair). Ethnicity is a combination of ancestry (genetic) and cultural upbringing (society).
The leap from "personality" to "ethnicity" is a big one, but not an insurmountable one. After all, both a persons ancestry and the culture they grow up in contribute greatly to their personality.
No I agree, the leap is not insurmountable, my point would be more that it's not inevitable or inherent, i.e. discussing the relationship between a person's appearance and their character, even if that person appears to be Jewish based on their name, is not inherently anti-Semitic. But it could be . . . it just doesn't have to be. Murray is presenting it as though this is incontrovertible anti-Semitism, and I don't see that. It's facially neutral, arguably anti-Semitic, like nearly every other example of alleged bigotry in 2022.
Agreed. And that's where this being an opinion article comes in. I'm assuming the author has a deeper background on antisemitism than I do, since all I have to go off is what I learned in grade school (which was simply that it was everywhere and it was the cool thing to do until the Nazi's came). Several commenters have mentioned that the term "physiognomy" has a history of antisemitic expression, which is beyond my knowledge.
Yes, I had to look it up myself.
True, but history. So false
True. The swastika was just inflammatory. It is an attempt to trigger an emotional reaction - perhaps because the author had to stretch so hard to try to make a case that this was an example of antisemitism. Maybe it is antisemitism. But it is ambiguous at best.
Yes, I agree.
But please consider that many of the articles from the left attacking the right on anti Semitism have either a reference to either white supremacy or a swastika. In my experience, the left can’t make the attacks any other way than inflammatory. But it is still wrong.
Did you miss the "Rothschild physiognomy" quote? Seems to be pretty anti-semitic.
Or, he was referencing a look of wealth / privileged. I'm not saying it was not antisemitic. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it was a failed attempt to be clever. But it surely is ambiguous. There are so many unambiguous cases of antisemitism - such that it seems the author's point was not so much to call out antisemitism as to find any way to smear someone on the right with the charge of antisemitism - no matter how hard they had to stretch to make the case.
Perhaps I just don't have "The Eye." I would have cast Rothschild as a young English parson, banker ... a young Ebenezer Scrooge.
I just don't see how calling someone ugly using long words is anything more than boorish. Don't you remember when Al Gore called George W. Bush "missing a chromosome?"