Unnecessary anxiety??

NAS86592 said:

Never having lived a life as a minority you will never ever grasp or understand the "vibes" associated with attitudes that are received

As a very white skinned Scotsman living in Brazil I do know what it is to be in a minority, and I do get plenty of stereotyping and bias based around this.

I do however call people out on it where I see prejudice and ask them to explain themselves - this typically results in them getting flustered, apologising or making a fast getaway while losing face to their friends.

Only once did it escalate to violence but a well timed Glasgow Kiss dealt with that incident and earned me respect in that bar. It is not a route I have any joy in persuing but I won't let myself be messed around with if I can possibly do something about it.

NAS86592 said:

I'm just too tired and old to be interested in changing the world or attutudes, but am still entitled to the kind of respect accorded to everyone that I diplay.

I'm a believer that respect has to be earned. Common decency is rarity in modern scociety with it becoming much more self centered so we have to go the extra mile if we are to command respect. It sucks but there is nothing we can do to change society, only those we have some contact or influence over.

I get what you mean about being tired, but the moment you grow tired of life you start to get old - fast.

Never having lived a life as a minority you will never ever grasp or understand the "vibes" associated with attitudes that are received  from those who are part of a majority group. Bravado has nothing to do with it.  Based on my experiences of life attitudes are difficult to change. Your pragmatic approach as an autie is understandable. My "binary" response ---as you call it --- is probabley based on my own autistic gut feelings accumulated over my lifetime and are very personal to me. Your analysis to conclude the views of my neighbours of me, may or may not be true. I am part of three minorities and I do not propose that each and every negative interreaction is an antisemetic one. I speak with a heavy Brooklyn accent and can judge immediately if it is off putting, or if it is my spoken communication weaknesses as an autie.  In short, perhaps I am taking the cowards way out --- I'm just too tired and old to be interested in changing the world or attutudes, but am still entitled to the kind of respect accorded to everyone that I diplay.

Thanks for your input. 

NAS86592 said:

if I am viewed  with predudice there are only two options---as I see it.:

1. walk away and ignore it

2. argue the point 

2 points to discuss here:

1 - When you sat you are viewed with prejudice, do you just mean when people are rude / aggressive towards you personally or are are they using one of the dictionary decinitions of having "Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular social group" ?

If it is the latter, have they stated their animosity to your socal group or are you assuming this?

2 - There are more than two options on how to react. You only list "fight or flight" responses - these are extremes so I would advocate trying something in between if you are brave enough. You don't have to argue - you can ask why they are responding the way they are, ask them to stop or just say "look, lets start over - let me introduce myself..."

Having this sort of binary response is only making things worse and it is likely to only escalate as your neighbours will see you as either a coward or an antagonist.

Unless they are insulting your religion then antisemitism isn't the cause.

I am not in control of  others perceptions of me. I try to make a good first impression  but if I am viewed  with predudice there are only two options---as I see it.:

1. walk away and ignore it

2. argue the point  which from my experience is a waste of time attempting to change an ingrained attitude. 

The news media has reported a %300 increase in antisemitism. I think your semantics  on my word choice is unjustified. 

I think that anxiety generally speaking, is dependent on a person not finding the necessary aspects of a solution, despite their every intention of knowing how to aim themselves.. otherwise it would be concern..

My friend, I am truly very sorry for you that some individuals feel the need to treat you in such a distasteful way. You would think they would have something better to do wouldn't you? It's their loss, in my opinion that they choose to treat you like that than get to know you. Keep your head up high and don't waste your precious time on the likes of people like that! You are better than that and worth more than that.

Iran, Hammas,rockets etc.

I deleted my original reply to this as I realised there were other replies/splinters I hadn't had time to read.

There are undoubtedly issues you face as autistic, Jewish, American, a non-local (outsider), and a host of other things that make up who you are.  It's your thread so take it where you want, but to answer your original question is your anxiety unnecessary?  Yes, it sounds like it is.  It may have been better to focus this thread on that and how people could help you, rather than geopolitical events, none of us can solve or have any control over (although I appreciate these are currently a major trigger), much of which feels like deflection.  I look at Twitter for this kind of stuff.

In the last 200 years, war aside, people have protested and fought for many things including Jewish emancipation, labour rights, universal suffrage as well as all sorts of civil rights.  From the battle of Cable Street in the 30s to the fight against apartheid and racism in the 70s/80s, all sorts of things - a minority of people of all ages stood up for what they believed in.   Before the paradigm shifted in their favour, they were vilified in the press, by more conservative (with a small c) people and it took years in some cases for change to be brought about. Society and language changes, none of us can stop that but each one of us can try and make a difference.

Now is no different really, woke and political correctness is just used as a new (ish) label, in my view to stir up division by people protecting their own interests - it's a centuries old move of divide and conquer.   Rights aren't pie and more rights for someone else shouldn't mean less rights for you, so there's no need to feel anxious or threatened by it but maybe we're more inclined to be by our nature.

The democratic majority - we need to be really careful with that, it's a fragile thing and it also changes.  The rights of minorities can easily be eroded or swept away by the "majority" often with tragic consequences.  If it was purely down to majority rule, then many of the rights that you and I both enjoy and are protected by, wouldn't exist. 

I'm the guy in the local shop who'll reach that thing for you on the top or bottom shelf you can't reach, defend you if I thought you were being picked on or check that you were ok.  So, if you want to label me any of those things that's up to you, it's what I consider to be fairness and common decency.  I'll just carry on trying to be the best I can and living my life trying not to hurt anyone else.

It seems to me that quite a lot of fuss is being made over Russia’s actions now. They weren’t before because of the fear of nuclear war.

As for China and the Uighurs, I agree. Similar fears I suppose, but it is ethnic cleansing, clearly.

None of which makes it okay or even sensible to take the Palestinians’ land away and coral the refugees in what the UN described as the world’s largest open air prison.

There is only one way Israelis will ever have peace and security: to give justice to the Palestinians. This is simply a fact.

Deleted User said:

Don’t you find it offensive that Israelis deny that the Palestinians even exist or that they have seized almost all the land the Palestinians were left with by the UN?

I was reading up on the claims to this land and it seems a bit ropey to me:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-claim-to-the-land-of-israel

The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises:

1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham;

2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land;

3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and

4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.

Point 1 has no legal standing as it cannot be proved or disproved by its nature.

Point 2 conveniently ignores the arabs living on the land before them. They may not have the same level of development of agriculture but planting something on the land does not equate to ownership. This point is therefore also moot.

Point 4 is land grab - occupation of foreign lands then claiming then as your own. I'm pretty sure it is illegal in international law.

Point 3 is fine - there was a modest area of land granted to the Israeli state through this mechanism but when you look at how the land grab has eroded the original inhabitants area over time it tells a different story:

Don’t you find it offensive that Israelis deny that the Palestinians even exist or that they have seized almost all the land the Palestinians were left with by the UN?

I find it horrifically offensive and unforgivable.

Well said,  BUT one needs to be careful with the amount of fake news floating about and the advent of AI to replicate or change anything.

NAS86592 said:

Yes, but the international public outcry, and the displayed depth of emotion never happened unlike with these current events. It simply got reported with some official remarks of condemnation.

That is probably because it has happened so many times it is not really a big story in the way Russias invasion of Ukraine was. It is less "news" than "it happened again" which doesn't get peoples interest as much.

NAS86592 said:

That is also a double standard perpetrated by the left wing bias of the BBC.

I think there is a degree of the BBC seeing the Palestinian civilans as the overall victims in the long chain of events unfolding.

I believe there is a view that while the military attacks by Hamas were a terrorist attack and should be condemned, the response by Israel is reflecting this same terror element through indiscriminate killing, collective punishment and further theft of land in the name of "safety".

Neither side is blameless but it is a David and Goliath story where Goliath is winning and the press love an undersdog for a good story so run with that.

I notice the BBC responded to the claims that they are refusing to call Hamas terrorists:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67083432

Their line of reasoning is compelling.

Iain said:

Sound familiar?

Yes, but the international public outcry, and the displayed depth of emotion never happened unlike with these current events. It simply got reported with some official remarks of condemnation. That is also a double standard perpetrated by the left wing bias of the BBC.

My intro explains some initial experiences, but I have reached a stage where I simply want a quiet life. I am too tired to pursue further efforts. Interreacting with this forum is my limit---providing I do not alienate myself Despite my many years here in the UK i acknowledge the role I have played in my journey and perhaps my cultural differences.

NAS86592 said:

Simply saying money talks louder than words

Who sends the money, who receives it and what is the trade used here? I do not understand what you are alluding to here.

NAS86592 said:

And tried they did even allowing  Palestinians into their government positions---but still came the rockets.! Appeasement never works with terrorists.

Are you saying the government of Palestine was ordering the attacks?

That would imply that the residents of Palestine chose to elect a government who would stand up to the neighbour who was killing its residents with impunity, stealing their land and preventing them from being able to trade freely with their neighbours like a normal country would.

I think this is a monster of Israels own making - and on purpose to justify further land grabs and further destruction of Palestines capability to be a self governing territory.

The pattern of their behaviour and response by Palestine is a clear indication of this.

Simply saying money talks louder than words.

NAS86592 said:

Why is not the same parallel made with Russia protracted over a much longer period of time.

I believe it has been covered much more in the news than you think - I certainly recall seeing the BBC cover the other countries that Russia has invaded with its massive overwhelming military force, its interference in the media (fake news, misinformation and paid for new channels / presenters supporting them) and threats of consequence for any other parties considering coming to the aid of the oppressed.

Sound familiar?

As for China, there is sufficiently little reliable information to make much of this unfortunately. The government there has complete control over the media and reporting.

I think where you are making the biggest mistake if focussing only on the latest attack by Hamas. Yes it was aweful and yes I condem it, but when looked at in the context of the ongoing conflict it is hardly surprising that it came to this.

Both sides are now doing truly aweful things but one side has a massively more powerful military, has a stranglehold on the other powers territory and has unconditional support from the largest superpower in the world, so it can act with impunity.

NAS86592 said:

there is money to be made, blinded oversight seems to kick in.

I don't understand this comment - can you explain please?

Iain said:

Over time it was the duty of the Israelli state to convince the locals that they were not bad people, that they wanted peace and would not try to steal more land that was not theirs to take.

And tried they did even allowing  Palestinians into their government positions---but still came the rockets.! Appeasement never works with terrorists.