WKD appears to be sincerely wondering if he’s on the right track:
The title is *The Merits of Anti-Semitism*. In this post you come to the defence of someone who likend the Holocaust to abortion, and I am assuming you are defending him against certain jewish organisations that took offence at this comment. You then conclude that maybe you can now understand medieval anti-semitism if medieval jews were like those criticising the cardinal.
Were exactly is the sarcasm in this? If there is any, you are using a very interesting definition of the word sarcasm. Although if you could actually specifically explain how your comment was sarcastic in any definition of the word, I will happily recant accusations of racism, and defend you at Eschaton, even.
SARCASM: A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. IRONY: The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
Now can you find any sarcasm in the title? Now can you figure out what possibly might have been “opposite to their literal meaning” about it? It is sarcastic BECAUSE I don’t hate Jews. And I certainly intended to wound those self-destructive Jewish leaders and those who are foolish enough to allow them leadership positions.
I’m curious about one thing. If criticizing leaders like Spiegel, Foxman (ADL), Strossen and Shapiro (ACLU) makes me an anti-semite, what does that make all of those who criticize Ariel Sharon in far more hateful terms? It all just makes me wonder how many of my critic’s definitions of irony were formed by Alanis Morrisette.