JMRC

The claim that "the Hitler from 1932 was sane and reasonable" can be easily refuted by pointing out that Mein Kampf was published in 1925. By quoting passages from Mein Kampf, it's easy to demonstrate that Adolf Hitler (yimakh shemo) was a madman and irrational being. I don't want to quote him, but there are many examples of insanity in that book. Not only is he evil, but he is also filled with extreme paranoia, obsessive hatred, and delusions of grandeur. As James Lindsay said: "There Is No Good Part of Hitler's Mein Kampf" youtube.com/watch?v=NM9ajU_9Fw4

Well, if the problem is that the social phenomenon bears the name of a politician, well, I rephrased the question, avoiding naming the politician.

Yes, creating new terminology can affect political sensitivities, but the safety of the Jewish people is more important than the sensitivities of antisemites. The goal of detecting antisemitism early is to prevent it from escalating into antisemitic violence, a persistent social phenomenon throughout human history. It is a canary in a coal mine.

The problem with claiming someone is acting in bad faith is that it is not possible to read other people's minds. Therefore, an accusation of bad faith can only be serious if there is evidence that the person defending the position has claimed not to believe it.

What is antisemitic in the question?

I believe that denying the existence of antisemitism will reverse all the social progress made since World War II in the protection and inclusion of minorities in Western societies. Therefore, one way to quantify the effect of the Livingstone Formula is to consider it as 80 years of social regression.

I am not saying that the statement "Israel has no right to colonise Palestine" is a double standard. Hence, you are attacking a straw man.

To say that the 3D test is about Israel just because it prevents situations of antisemitism related to Israel is a fallacy known as argumentum ad consequentiam.

Given a human population, what they consider demonic can be measured, for example, through surveys or by studying their communication style. Therefore, it is objective for any fixed population, although it may vary from one to another. Now, if X is equated with what the population considers demonic, then X is demonized. Something similar happens with double standards and delegitimization: given a population, they are objective for it, but we must consider this objectivity in a statistical sense, where fluctuations are allowed.

The 3D test can be used as a tool to investigate the Israel-related side of antisemitism, but that doesn't mean the test is designed ad hoc to prevent criticism of Israel. You can criticize Israel in a non-antisemitic way, just avoid the 3Ds.

The 3D test does not explicitly mention Israel.

Another effective way to detect antisemitism is the genetic method: taking any antisemitic statement and showing how it evolved from known antisemitic tropes, rather than from an objective situation. Of course, this requires solid evidence, and not all arguments are valid. In my opinion, antisemitism is like a computer virus that infects human language.

I removed Ye from the examples because some argue that he was more of an outlier and not part of the trend I'm trying to show. As for antisemitism, I agree that it's extremely difficult to measure, but the 3D criterion is quite objective; if some of these Ds are present, conclude that antisemitism exists; if all the Ds are absent, conclude that it doesn't. There can be false positives/negatives, but that problem is present in all social phenomena. It's worth noting that the 3D test doesn't mention Israel.

When analyzing polls, it's crucial to consider that some people lie or are hypocritical. Furthermore, some antisemitism is unconscious. That is, some people sincerely believe they are not antisemites, that the problem is that the Jewish people are exactly as their antisemitic worldview suggests. Therefore, objective criteria like the Sharansky 3D test are important for making the invisible visible.

@Obie2.0 The statement "the Israeli government is illegitimate" is not only a case of delegitimization, but also of double standards: why are other states legitimate but the Jewish state is not?

@sfxedit Evidence that the Overton window on antisemitism in the United States has shifted: (1) Ye (Kanye West) has released a song titled “Heil Hitler,” openly praising Adolf Hitler. (2) Piers Morgan and other popular YouTube channels have aired extensive interviews with openly antisemitic guests, despite Piers Morgan's condemnation of antisemitism. (3) Many scandals about antisemitic posts on X (formerly Twitter). (4) The nationalist “Groyper” movement has grown in size and influence. (5) Record‑high antisemitic incidents (see reports by ADL, B'nai Brith Canada, etc).

@F1Krazy 3Ds' definition of antisemitism is fairly unambiguous and makes no mention of Israel. Criticism of Israel is considered antisemitic when it is based on double standards, delegitimization, or demonization.

@Obie2.0 The statement "the Israeli government is illegitimate" is not only a case of delegitimization, but also of double standards: why are other states legitimate but the Jewish state is not?

@sfxedit Evidence that the Overton window on antisemitism in the United States has shifted: (1) Ye (Kanye West) has released a song titled “Heil Hitler,” openly praising Adolf Hitler. (2) Piers Morgan and other popular YouTube channels have aired extensive interviews with openly antisemitic guests, despite Piers Morgan's condemnation of antisemitism. (3) Many scandals about antisemitic posts on X (formerly Twitter). (4) The nationalist “Groyper” movement has grown in size and influence. (5) Record‑high antisemitic incidents (see reports by ADL, B'nai Brith Canada, etc).

@F1Krazy 3Ds' definition of antisemitism is fairly unambiguous and makes no mention of Israel. Criticism of Israel is considered antisemitic when it is based on double standards, delegitimization, or demonization.

Q: "I think the case of Bachelier's thesis is rather different from the chemist's "might be used" suggestion". A: First, the fact that he was a chemist doesn’t disqualify him from making a meaningful contribution to mathematical economics—after all, Maury Osborne was an astronomer. Second, I wouldn’t dismiss the value of a hypothetical document without at least reading it.

A 19th-century chemist applying calculus to forecast crashes could be tested against modern econometrics. History warns us that bold math often sleeps: Louis Bachelier’s 1900 thesis, Théorie de la spéculation, lay ignored for about 55 years until it was rediscovered by Leonard Jimmie Savage.

If Schorlemmer really said that to Marx, it would definitely motivate me to explore his work further for insights into mathematical economics. The history of this field is fascinating—I highly recommend James Weatherall's book The Physics of Wall Street. So, history of mathematics advance our understanding of mathematics.