SUBSCRIBE Log In Show Search Letters to the Editor How to submit a letter Tips View All Advertisement Voices Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor: California, not just L.A., must find ways to fight antisemitism A synagogue in the background, with Israeli and Palestinian flags in the foreground A protest with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrators near Adas Torah in Los Angeles on June 23, 2024. (Zoe Cranfill / Los Angeles Times) June 18, 2025 5 AM PT 1 To the editor: Guest contributor Rabbi Noah Farkas writes that antisemitism is “a Los Angeles problem” (“L.A. has more to do to fight antisemitism and protect Jewish residents,” June 4). It definitely is. But it is also a San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego problem, a California problem and an American problem. The lack of solidarity he speaks of in defense of civil rights, equity and equality for Jews is a state and national problem. We feel it as painfully and as palpably in Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco as in Los Angeles. We struggle with the same challenges of being under-resourced to ensure the physical safety of Jewish community members at schools, senior centers, synagogues and community centers. We struggle, too, with the lack of recognition and inclusion of the diversity of the Jewish community including Ethiopian, Mizrahi and Sephardic voices, as Farkas notes, as well as Asian, African American and Hispanic Jews in ethnic studies curricula. Jews at California schools and universities experience well-documented marginalization, gaslighting and invidious targeting through verbal and physical abuse and violence, harassment, exclusion and discrimination, as Farkas illustrates. We need action and allyship on a local, state and national level on a bipartisan basis across society and with the support of the full diversity of the American people. Only then will Jewish people in America be safe and only then will we come closer to achieving freedom, equality and access to justice for all. Noam Schimmel, Berkeley This writer is a lecturer in global studies at UC Berkeley. .. To the editor: Farkas says L.A. must do more to fight antisemitism. This invites the question: Or what? What will the Jewish community of Los Angeles do if the government and citizens of the city and county of Los Angeles continue to ignore antisemitism? The word “must” implies that there will be consequences for failure to act. Farkas should lead the Jewish Federation in developing a plan of action that will hold Los Angeles’ leaders accountable for fighting antisemitism and that will impose actual consequences if those leaders fail. Advertisement Stuart Creque, Moraga, Calif. .. To the editor: I doubt antisemitism is higher now than before. However, the expression of it certainly is. This is part of a general coarsening of public expression that was exacerbated in 2016 by a presidential candidate who called people names and is mean and confrontational. When he said that there were “very fine people on both sides” in 2017, he opened the Pandora’s box of hate that has its expression in vile and violent antisemitic attacks. As long as this tone is set from above, we will have violence, like that against lawmakers in Minnesota, and all sorts of hate-induced attacks. Measures that Farkas suggests will do little to counter this narrative of open expression of hate by our leaders. Harlan Levinson, Los Angeles
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nobody is telling you how FUCKED every military on Earth just became. Everyone is watching the war. The missiles flying. The explosions. Nobody is talking about the fact that Israel just made missiles OBSOLETE. The Iron Beam. A 100-kilowatt laser. Deployed in LIVE COMBAT for the first time in human history. Not a test. Not a prototype. Real war. Real Iranian missiles. Destroyed in mid-air. By a beam of light. → Cost per Iron Dome interceptor: $50,000 → Cost per Iron Beam shot: $2 → That is not a typo. Two. Dollars. Iran spent $20,000 building a drone. Israel deleted it with $2 of electricity. Iran fires 100 drones in a swarm attack. Cost to Iran: $2,000,000. Cost to Israel: $200. 💀 Here's what nobody is explaining to you: This doesn't just change THIS war. This changes ALL war. Forever. → Every missile Iran has ever built is now worthless scrap metal → Russia's entire missile stockpile? Obsolete overnight. → China's "carrier killer" ballistic missiles? The ones they spent $50,000,000,000 developing? Junk. → North Korea's only leverage — its missile program? Gone. → The Iron Beam never runs out of ammo. It runs on ELECTRICITY. → It fires at the speed of light. Nothing can dodge it. → It's silent. No explosion. The missile just vanishes. → Every country that invested in missiles just watched decades of military spending become worthless in real time. The US spent $200,000,000,000 on missile defense over 40 years. Israel just replaced it with a laser that costs less than a coffee per shot. This is not an upgrade. This is the end of an era. The age of missiles just died on live television and nobody is talking about it. Bookmark this. You're watching the biggest shift in military history since the atomic bomb.
-
When people lose a political battle do they historicaly turn into angry yelling people as to deal with the loss Searching the web 48 results Yes, historically and psychologically, people (and groups) who lose a major political battle often respond with heightened anger, vocal outrage, yelling/protesting, resentment, and sometimes radicalization. This isn't universal—some accept defeat gracefully and move on—but it's a very common pattern across time, cultures, and ideologies. It's not just "sore losing"; it's a mix of emotional coping, group dynamics, and strategic behavior.Why this happensPsychological mechanisms: Political loss threatens identity, status, and worldview. Anger serves as a defense— it masks grief, fear, or helplessness, provides a sense of agency ("I'm fighting back!"), and bonds the "losers" together against the "winners." Resentment can feel empowering; it turns passive defeat into active narrative of injustice or betrayal. Scapegoating opponents (or "elites," "traitors," etc.) is classic. Contempt and rage can even be enjoyable in the short term as they elevate the self above the "enemy." Group polarization: In defeat, factions often radicalize. Moderates get sidelined, while louder, angrier voices dominate the conversation. This creates echo chambers where outrage is rewarded with attention, loyalty, and status within the group. "Radical loser" dynamic: Some thinkers describe how those who feel like societal or political "losers" adopt aggression as identity—lashing out to reclaim dignity or visibility. This shows up in both left- and right-wing movements after defeats. Historical examplesAncient & early modern: After military or political defeats (e.g., Athens condemning leaders like Phocion post-losses), losers often turned to bitter recriminations, purges, or mob anger. Grievance-fueled rebellions like Bacon's Rebellion (1676 Virginia) started with angry colonists feeling unprotected and ignored by authorities—leading to violence and burning the capital. U.S. history: The 1790s were full of rage—Whiskey Rebellion mobs tarred-and-feathered tax collectors; partisan newspapers accused opponents of betraying the Revolution. Post-Civil War, defeated Southern ex-Confederates channeled anger into Democratic Party resurgence, voter suppression, and Jim Crow. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 loss (and the Populist movement's collapse) saw agrarian "losers" fuel fiery rhetoric against "eastern elites," influencing later movements. 20th-century labor strikes or civil rights setbacks often involved angry protests turning confrontational. Recent patterns: Losers of elections frequently enter a "wilderness" phase of internal anger and finger-pointing. Examples include post-2016 progressive/Democratic infighting (some turning to strident resistance or identity-focused outrage), or post-2020 Trump supporters embracing "stolen election" narratives that fueled protests and threats. On the other side, losses have led to accusations of fascism or betrayal, with vocal media and street anger. Both sides show extremists using more negative, angry language than moderates. This pattern appears across the spectrum—left after economic/globalization "losses," right after cultural or foreign policy shifts, populists feeling like "globalization losers," etc. Anger often drives participation (protests, voting, organizing) but can also lead to violence, conspiracy thinking, or long-term bitterness if unresolved.Not always "yelling" foreverMany groups eventually adapt: they regroup, moderate, learn lessons, or win future battles. The U.S. survived the angry 1790s and became a stable nation. Populist energy from 1890s "losers" reshaped parties without destroying democracy. But unchecked, it can deepen polarization, erode trust, or spawn extremism.In short, yes—turning to loud, angry expressions is a frequent historical response to political loss. It helps process the pain and rally the faithful, but it risks becoming performative or destructive if it replaces constructive strategy. Humans are tribal; defeat stings, and yelling is one way we cope and signal we're not done fighting. The healthier paths (reflection, adaptation, bridge-building) exist but are harder in polarized times.
No comments:
Post a Comment