- This topic has 279 replies, 49 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Who is the real Taliban? The chasidim who mind there own bussiness and dont tell anyone alse how to live there lives, or those who try telling them (in not the most flattering way) what standerds they should or shoudent have?”
(part of this weeks “Di Tzeitung” editoriel)
I haven’t been following this discussion, but for the record, I think:
A. A policy of no women pictures is something I can understand and respect.
It’s not my approach, but I can understand it as well.
B. In that situation (with that policy), I would have photoshopped them out, with a notation that they had been removed.
If they had done that, I would have no real complaints against them; but that’s not what they did.
C. I really don’t think this is a big deal. At all.
Apparently lots of people disagree with you. 🙂
The Wolf
“Who is the real Taliban? The chasidim who mind there own bussiness and dont tell anyone alse how to live there lives, or those who try telling them (in not the most flattering way) what standerds they should or shoudent have?”
I have to wonder at just how sincere the apology is when they turn it around and call their critics “the Taliban.”
The Wolf
oh gosh okay I’m back in
Deiyezooger
cute point, but when someone is holding a DISCUSSION “defending women’s rights”, it seems entirely the opposite of the Taliban’s means of going about things.
The only “standards” they are being “forced” to uphold, are basic journalistic standards of reporting a story accurately, without any “biases”.
As mentioned and agreed to by I think everyone here, the newspaper is entitled to their own standards, however, they must be more mindful of how they will be perceived ie. will more people have unfavorable views of orthodox Jews? (Whether or not it is justified or not is irrelevant)
The Taliban cuts women’s heads off and their courts approve fathers and brothers doing an “honor killing” on their misbehaved daughters and sisters. How on earth’s name can anyone invoke the Taliban? And, Wolf, what deiyzooger quoted is them *defending* themselves from their critics (mainly on the internet) comparing them to the Taliban.
And, yes, I too completely agree with popa that this whole incident is a big tado about nothing but silliness that a frei yid who hates the Orthodox got the media to try to make a whole sensation out of.
Actually, most articles I’ve read on the subject explain the orthodox approach/philosophy, even if they don’t agree with it.
However, even with your claim, it’s still only speech. Not forcing anybody to do anything with the threat of physical punishment.
And, Wolf, what deiyzooger quoted is them *defending* themselves from their critics (mainly on the internet) comparing them to the Taliban.
It’s doing both. It’s defending themselves against charges of being “the Taliban” and hurling the label back on the other side.
The Wolf
I don’t agree with der tzeitungs policies about a number of things, but quite frankly they are within their rights to print the photo with a picture of a donkey in place of hillaries head. That’s “freedom of speech”. Someone will always find fault with those who disagree with them, at times using it as a launching pad for the rest of their hatred.
That’s “freedom of speech”.
So is the right to criticize them for it.
The Wolf
I think it’s ironic that in defense of how preposterous it is that they were compared to the taliban, they countered with a ridiculous counterclaim implying their critics are the taliban.
Again maybe I’m ignorant; I’m aware of honor killings in general but aside from one, exceptional case in distant memory, I don’t remember beheadings. Inaccuracies are what caused these issues in the first place people…
???? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????! ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???
???? ???????? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????! ?? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???
Speaking in Yiddish without translating when you know there are those around who don’t understand is just as rude as whispering to one person while standing right in front of another.
The Wolf
again not everyone is fluent in yiddish. I think is “leshitaso” not being able to relate to other people who are different.
Wolf,
Go to google, click “More,” then click Translate;
although I must tell you, sometimes it translates into sheer gibberish.
Its hard to translate yiddish
Babel Fish does not translate yiddish
Google Translate does Yiddish.
Google Translate does Yiddish.
Thanks.
msseeker,
If insisting on the truth makes one a ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? then I proudly wear the badge. I’d rather be one of the ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? than excuse “frum” dishonesty any day of the week. And if that makes me an apikorus, a moser, a troublemaker, a malshin, a “frei yid,” a “meshuga” or whatever dirty labels you want to throw at me, then that’s fine too. I don’t really care.
And lastly, if you’re going to insult an entire group of Jews, at least have the courage and decency to do so in a language that they understand.
The Wolf
I apologize. I was so frustrated with the senseless arguments I just had to vent in my mama loshen. In fact I was surprised it passed through the mods.
Wolf, judging by your comment, I’m not sure the translation is accurate. Also, ????? ????? ??? does not mean ?????. It means a normal, rational person who somehow gets completely twisted about a particular thing.
Anyway, enough for me. Our differences in hashkafa are too deep and too wide for bridges of understanding. We should never be rude, though, and for that I apologize again.
Mods: can you please tell me what good is coming out of dragging this thread out for soooooooooo long???
“but quite frankly they are within their rights to print the photo with a picture of a donkey in place of hillaries headee”
See my previous post about Sarah Palins head being pasted onto a very undeacent picture, where were those who care about disrespecting women in power?
It wasn’t a statement about women in general
This newspaper deliberately photoshopped both women out, admitting it was a result of their being female.
Clearly different.
“I think it’s ironic that in defense of how preposterous it is that they were compared to the taliban, they countered with a ridiculous counterclaim implying their critics are the taliban.”
They didnt accuse anyone of being like the Taliban, all they said was its ironic that those who try to tell them how to do things accuse THEM for being Taliban.
“I have to wonder at just how sincere the apology is when they turn it around and call their critics “the Taliban.” ”
They apoligized for photoshoping the picture, witch I think everyone agrees was a mistake (mistake as in wrong, not as in inocent) giving anybody who disagrees with them a feild day.
They did not and will not apoligize for their policy of not puting pictures of women in THEIR newspaper.
They should never apologize for their editorial policies or decisions.
This is really off the topic of the photo, but everyone is prejudiced against someone or something, no matter how “open” they may claim to be.
What the editorial was trying to say, and perhaps said it a bit clunsily is that it is ironic that while decrying the papers policy regarding pictures they are trying to impose their own thought on the paper.
At the end of the day, if someone wants to, they can make an issue out of anything, in fact, I take offense at the socks deizooger is wearing today. Perhaps I will send a letter to the washington post about it.
The only mistake the paper made was to apologize. They did nothing wrong, and the apology accomplished nothing.
It should be noted that the *only* thing Der Zeitung apologized for was for altering the photo even though the White House requested no alterations be made. As already discussed here as well as at the Washington Post, in fact they were fully within their rights to make, and publish, whatever modifications they wish.
deiyezooger
“They didnt accuse anyone of being like the Taliban, all they said was its ironic that those who try to tell them how to do things accuse THEM for being Taliban.”
Exactly, as I said. They are implying that their critics are like the Taliban (or else it wouldn’t be ironic, like you said). I was careful with my Lashon to only say imply and not accuse.
Mods: can you please tell me what good is coming out of dragging this thread out for soooooooooo long???
I’m not a mod, but it’s pretty obvious; the more people stay on, the more likely people like the good folks at Ohel Mental Health Professionals will feel it worthwhile to advertise.
DY- I am shocked that this thread is still here. Guys are you normal at all? just forget it already….the newspaper is already recycled and made into tissues!
Guys are you normal at all?
Some of the others might be. 🙂
Seriously, the issue runs much deeper than just one issue (of a newspaper, that is).
It speaks about tolerance and understanding for someone else’s values, which you don’t necessarily agree with. It speaks about understanding a perspective different than your own. And both sides were somewhat lacking in this situation.
I HATE TO SPOIL YOUR ACCUSATIONS; BUT for those of you who read yiddish, the original article that accompanied that picture clearly stated that Hilary Clinton was there!!!
There is only one torah way. You are not allowed to veer left OR RIGHT.
its funny that you stressed the part about to the right…. isnt it interesting how we dont mind when ppl are less frum than us but when they are more frum we say they are extreme… not pointing any fingers at your post just interesting that you caps for RIGHT
Yid.period -“if they caused a misconception of how they perceive women, doesn’t that make them wrong?”
Yes, they were wrong -that’s why they apologized. I’m sure they won’t do it again. Hindsight is always better than foresight.
Did you ever do anything wrong in your life?
Bored – “we are discussing normal rational people not the radicals. Raidcals on either end will never be satisfied with anything except there own way.”
Most of the comments I read on the net were vile, antisemitic and disgusting regarding Chassidim. If you call these people normal and rational you are sadly very misguided. As a matter of fact, I think the rational people in this country, whether Yiddin or Goyim, accept the newspaper’s apology!
health
I’m not sure what your point is. When I’m wrong I’m wrong. When they’re wrong, they should, and did, own up to parts of it. I was addressing the rest of it, the parts that, some people here are still defending.
There is only one torah way.
+69=70
Adorable, one of my critique of Charedi society in general is that they ask for tolerance from the “left” but don’t grant it themselves.
Most people to the “left” are more likely to accept the “right”‘s right to live as they choose. Notice the “left” aren’t doing things like posting signs to alter people’s dress, whereas the “right” does. The “left” generally has a live and let live attitude. The “right” does not.
SJS: You have got to be kidding. What do you call the media furor over this newspaper’s private decision? Live and let live?
What do you call this thread?
I am really fascinated that you percieve the left as “live and let live”, generally. While the left has been the champion of civil rights to privacy in the moral realm, that is always where it fits some other agenda they have, usually an anti-moralism agenda.
The left is the force behind the regulatory state we have. The left is why we need to wear seatbelts, helmets, child seats, etc. The left is why you need an NPDES permit to run a drain, and all sorts of permits.
Add to that things like how many hours you can work, how much you can work for, what sorts of jobs you can do, who you must hire, and all the workplace regulation.
Really? Live and let live?
manohman,
Are you really trying to say that the “right” is more accepting than the left? HAHA
And I love how safety concerns are a “problem” of the left wing. Do you know why those were implemented? Granted, I don’t agree with the entire “left” either, but as a general rule, the “left” is more accepting than the “right.”
You want to talk accepting?
Sure, the left is accepting of every deviant and destructive behavior, except conservatives.
They are ok with terrorism (freedom fighters), criminals (misunderstood), etc.
But if I oppose Barack Obama as president- I’m a racist.
If I oppose the health care bill- I want to see poor people die.
They run around accepting Arafat. How about accept George Bush.
They invite Ahmadenijad to speak, but heckle if an Israeli comes.
Very accepting.
Actually it is the right that is accepting, whereas the left is anything but accepting. While the left will constantly hammer the right for everything (take a look at any number of blogs in the “jblogsphere”), folks in the right are most welcoming to the most fanatically leftists anti-religious with open invitations to their homes, bikur cholim, and a whole host of love — all without a single string attached.
Canine, Manohman: The Left teach us the concept to let ‘others live’ through understanding from where other peoples weakness originate; however, the Right teach us to demand perfection from ‘ourselves’ and to not be tolerant of our ‘own’ weakness. The correct Torah approach is to combine these two concepts within ourselves, so that we can then properly fulfill all the mitzvos of the Torah.
anyone hear the thing by hadarshan making fun of this whole situation?
Even for those who would argue that Bnos Yisrael should not be seen in a published photograph (and I do not understand that rationale), what does that have to do with a non-Jewish woman? Hillary Clinton is far from a Bas Yisrael (or ANY type of Yisrael). AND she is a powerful woman in government. Insulting her was a BIG gaffe.
Oomis,
Aside from the lack of modesty (their standards, not mine) of a woman appearing in a photo, there’s a lack of modesty in a man seeing a photo of a woman (again, their standards, not mine).
Since I don’t personally see any photo of a woman being intrinsically immodest, I actually suspect that an editorial policy of not printing pictures of a woman is not due to the inherent immodesty, rather as a precaution that a mistake not be made and a picture be published should not have been.
If I ran a chareidi paper, I would not publish pictures of women, but not because of the inherent immodesty. I would be afraid that a sponsor would want to advertise with a picture of a woman, for example if a couple was being honored, and the picture would not fit my standards. If I refused to publish it, those donors could easily get insulted. If the policy is to not allow any pictures, then there would be no insult.
Insulting her was a BIG gaffe.
Was she actually insulted, or is that conjecture?
A statment from Mrs. Clintons office said that while being a US Senator from NY she had a very good working relationsheep with chassidish groups, she understands their culture and was not offended.
Aside from the lack of modesty (their standards, not mine)
Daas: You don’t find it immodest for a Jewish man to view a photo of a woman wearing pants?
I do.
Daas: You don’t find it immodest for a Jewish man to view a photo of a woman wearing pants?
I never said a word here about what my standards are, I don’t know where you got that from.
Daas: You don’t find it immodest for a Jewish man to view a photo of a woman wearing pants?
She was wearing a skirt in the photo.
Daas: I’m just asking a question. Does your standards of modesty preclude a Jewish man from viewing a photo of a woman in pants?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.