#rule 6

Rule number 6 is "Fuck it, either way"

I've been saying this for a while, but finding this post on my dash has, I feel, given me more tools to express this thought about why Jews (especially in the US and American-dominated online spaces) are feeling increasingly alienated by their leftist friends. Why many Jews who otherwise lean left will vote right, much to the dismay and even revulsion of their leftist friends. Why many Jews end up feeling "safer" leaning right. Why it is not fair or reasonable to "blame" these Jews for exercising their democratic right of secret ballot in such a way.

I'm screenshotting the post because (a) it's long, and (b) most of its content is not actually the point here. I'm not trying to argue with the OP or with my acquaintance who reblogged it onto my dash. I just want to explain what I find troubling about it.

The post is, as I said, long. I'll be honest: I only skimmed it. I'm not American. So skimming past - scrolling past to see the rest of my dash - I saw a lot of things where my brain went "Oh, that looks bad," but, you know, in a vague sort of way. Bad, but doesn't impact me directly. Or bad, but not in a way I can do anything about it either way (especially since I can't vote in the US). Or bad-ish, but that's not an issue of deep importance to me personally. And then I saw this:

And suddenly I felt hostile to the OP, because oh look, they just lumped in supporting my homeland, where my family live, which is currently under attack and in dire need of support, as a "bad" thing. Suddenly I feel like OP hates me, or at least, considers my continued existence on their own list of "bad-ish, but that's not an issue of deep importance to me personally."

But you know what? I kept scrolling. It felt like such a mild lip-service anti-Israel line that I thought, "Maybe this person doesn't hate Jews and Israel so much." I reevaluated my initial hostile response and decided to give OP a second chance, to walk it back. It sickens me that I've gotten so used to racism against my people that some expressions of it just don't register anymore. But I kept scrolling, and it got worse.

So what I'm reading here is an excerpt from the document that sounds, to me as a Jewish person, eminently reasonable and reassuring. Couched in language and context from OP that wants to paint it as a bad thing that the writers of this document believe that Israel, the Jewish state and Jewish indigenous homeland, should be able to defend itself against... *checks notes* three terrorist organizations with genocide against Jews explicitly in their mandate, and one dictatorship country which has repeatedly expressed that it has the desire and is working on having the means to "wipe Israel off the map."

Perhaps OP has been living under a rock (or, like me, only really focuses on political updates that hit close to home) for the past 7 and a half months and is unaware of Hamas's horrific attack of October 7, 2023 against Israel, in which civilians were brutally slaughtered, young women raped, mutilated bodies paraded through the streets, and dozens abducted - many of whom are still in captivity to the terrorist organization which has not allowed any humanitarian visits to the hostages or even confirmed proof of life for those it still holds.

But when I read the above excerpted paragraph, I went from "I'm not American but I guess most of this sounds vaguely bad" to "I hope this party wins." "I hope that this specific part of this platform is implemented because it is offering support, protection, and safety for me and my family."

You - OP and people who share their views; you as non-Jews who do not share in our unique suffering - you have no right to blame us for choosing our own survival. I would expect you to prioritize yours, as well.

It is things like this - not this platform, but this post, lumping in support of Israel against three terrorist organizations and a genocidal dictatorship with all the other "bad" things like deforestation and nuclear weapons, that push Jews to the right, or at least away from this part of the left. It is reading things like this, that take it for granted that my family and I should not be protected, should not have a right to live in our home, that radicalize people like me.

You're right: most of the other things here are things I would deem as "bad," but if I embrace this platform with open arms at least I get to survive, to fight against the rest another day. Better than rejecting it in favour of someone who has otherwise wonderful ideals but wants me dead.

I want to be able to care about all the other "bad" things in that post, in that document, but right now, we are bleeding. If I had to vote on it right now, I would choose whoever penned this document or stands behind it, because I need to prioritize my safety and continued survival over any other platform issue, and if I am not for myself, who will be for me?

"It is permissible to portray evildoers in a story for children, so as to keep the picture simple. But when the great world literature of the past -- Shakespeare, Schiller, Dickens -- inflates and inflates images of evildoers of the blackest shades, it seems somewhat farcical and clumsy to our contemporary perception. The trouble lies in the way these classic evildoers are pictured. They recognized themselves as evildoers, and they know their souls are black. And they reason: 'I cannot live unless I do evil. So I'll set my father against my brother! I'll drink the victim's sufferings until I'm drunk with them!' Iago very precisely identifies his purposes and his motives as being black and born of hate. But no, that's not the way it is! To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good, or else that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law. Fortunately, it is in the nature of the human being to seek a justification for his actions. Macbeth's self-justifications were feeble -- and his conscience devoured him.Yes, even Iago was a little lamb too. The imagination and the spiritual strength of Shakespeare's evildoers stopped short at a dozen corpses. Because they had no ideology. Ideology -- that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and deterination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. ... Thanks to ideology, the 20th century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions. This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed. How then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist? And who was it that destroyed these millions? Without evildoers there would have been no Archipelago."

Actually I feel more like this is getting into Rule 6 territory. It sounds like you’re convinced torture and physical abuse work and want me to sign off on your story on the basis of a vaguely defined ‘real life’ incident you’ve not provided any real evidence for.

 That’s not what I’m here for.

 Going forward I suggest considering:

Whether your source described every attempt including those that clearly and definitely failed

Whether your source is even remotely reliable (torturers and abusers are not good sources on this: they have a vested interest in claiming what they do is effective)

The role of bribery, blackmail and emotional abuse here all of which can pressure people into doing things like giving out passwords

The possibility the abuser obtained the information from somewhere else

How well analysed the incident in question is

How well analysed the long term behaviour of this particular abuser is

The role of memory problems in witness, survivor and abuser accounts of anything traumatic

Whether this is based on interviews (or equivalents) vs a highly studied and scrutinised case

Bias

 I’ve read about hundreds of torture cases and I’ve read the analytical work of people who study these things for a living. I have never seen a substantiated case of torture leading to accurate information.

 I have seen plenty of people point to vague, unsubstantiated, ‘this probably happened’ incidents as if they’re proof.

 If you want to write torture as something successful and right, I cannot stop you. I can’t and shouldn’t make your moral judgements for you.

 But if that’s what you want to do, I doubt you’ll find anything helpful here. I’m not arguing with Just So stories.

 Which means that the almost-inevitable follow ups and hate mail are going straight in the bin.

Available on Wordpress.

No spying on other agents through any methods including the vents. (Yes Agent Barton, we’re looking at you...)

No.

Please consult Rule 6 and send me questions related to writing fiction, rather than questions about real world issues designed to make me defend the idea that brutalising other human beings is wrong.

I do not think that’s an idea should have to defend.