Glenn, we're talking past each other.

I barely ever refer to anything about my individual attributes or private beliefs because I don't think that's what people come here to read. Has it ever occured to you that a person's religious views or lack thereor is a personal matter and really none of your business?

Uhm, yes? That's why I didn't bring it up. Someone else did. They mentioned you were Jewish, and I responded. I never brought it up because you never brought it up. Then someone else brought it up, and I responded since Glenn (you never brought it up) then I didn't think it factored in.

Go back and reread the exchange. Here's my response:

If Glenn is Jewish, he's never mentioned it or addressed it, so neither shall I. It clearly is not something he identifies with in any way, and he seems quite intent on proving it has no involvement in his ideological or intellectual arguments.

Now you're attacking me for bringing it up?

Wha-? How's that again?

The fact that you think you have the right to go running around shouting that Person X does not hold certain religious views based exclusively on the fact that he has not announced those views is indicative of the kind of rank fallacies and increasing dishonesty that permeate almost everything you have written today.

If you actively identified with being Jewish, I do think that would enter into your discussion of anti-Semitism. I don't see how it couldn't. Therefore if you choose not to mention then, I'm inclined to conclude that your religious life does not play a role.

I don't know what "rank fallacies and increasing dishonesty" mean here, other than calling me a jerk. In which case, just call me a jerk.

Again, I never brought up your personal religion. Someone else did. But from none of your arguments was I able to conclude your personal religion and/or life experiences influenced you on this issue.

If you want to argue our personal lives and experiences have no factor on our beliefs, then okay. I'm not sure I'd agree, but it's a valid argument to be made.

Almost every one of your comments here today has been grounded in one of two practices, if not both: (1) inventing views and attributing them to people who don't hold those views and (2) making statements without having the slightest idea if they're true. That has led you into the numerous fallacies which Paul Rosenberg and others have identified.

Oh please, Glenn, everything you do is about parsing out the real and unstated motives of wingnuts. But it can't be done here? Give me a break. Paging logical inconsistencies.

What are you doing if not ascribing hidden motive to the ADL?

Oh, that's right. You are.

But if I attempt to parse anti-Semitic motives, I'm wayyyy out of bounds.

Give me a break, Glenn.

Motivations for political argument are the core of your blog.

You parse the Sober Serious crowd with scathing wit and that's why I love your blog. Incidentally you're right about them.

Then I come along but since nobody "specifically stated" something, whoa is me for inferring anything.

Jebus Glenn, that's the ENTIRE CRUX of your blog.

Logical fallacies have nothing whatever to do with the Frankfurt School specifically.

Of course they don't genius, the structuralists brought in affect and historical materialism into the dialectic. They argued that masses often perpetuate hegemony without awareness. Theirs was a revolution that felt no need to parse your inane and twitty "logical fallacy" schoolyardisms.

You claim if you say you're not perpetuating an anti-Semitic narrative loud enough, you're not. The structuralists would laugh you out of the building for your ignorance as to what's really motivating you.

But hey, tell me about how if A=B, then what can we conclude about C.

The entire point of structuralism was to reject your pedantic binaries.

I've been called worse.

Legitimate anger at the Iraq War often leads to misdirected anger, which can spill over into Jewish conspiracy theories, because hey, some "Other" has to be responsible for this mess. It couldn't be the majority of the American people following a foolish president. It's gotta be AIPAC lobbying or hidden Israelis.

So yeah, I expect this level of reaction.

AIPAC is an atrocious organization, but so are the numerous churches and fundamentalist movements bankrolling the wingnuts.

I can't even imagine what I'd have to read if Richard Mellon Scaife or Rupert Murdoch were Jewish. But since they're not, they just skate on by. it's gotta be Joe Lieberman and AIPAC that led us into Iraq and is trying to lead us into Iran.

Same old story.

As to Glenn, I wouldn't mind an apology for your false characterization that I brought up your religion. It should be pretty clear to you by now that I did not, and don't think it's relevant unless you choose to discuss it. Your attack on me on that issue was about as unfounded as it gets.