social media

Jacob Samuel’s new special

Jacob Samuel self-produced his newest comedy special, Big Talk. (Chelsey Stuyt Photography)

Jacob Samuel’s second comedy special, Big Talk, premiered on YouTube last month and already it has racked up more than 20,000 views. The Vancouver-based comedian filmed the 52-minute special in front of live audiences at the city’s China Cloud Studio. In addition to writing and performing, Samuel gets producing, directing and editing credits.

Much of the material in Big Talk was worked out over five years, a period punctuated by Samuel’s winning a 2021 Juno Award for best comedy album for his first special, Horse Power. And that win was not the first time the comedian was recognized for his work.

At 25 years old, Samuel submitted some of his original single-panel cartoons to The New Yorker magazine, which published some of them – a notable achievement, especially at such a young age. Several other publications have featured his humorous illustrations, as well, including the Jewish Independent. He has published two books of single-panel cartoons.

Samuel has been performing stand-up for years – at clubs, on stages, television and radio, at festivals. He’s a regular on CBC Radio’s The Debaters.

His drive to perform started early in life.

“Honestly, I’m still trying to convince myself I can competently tell a joke,” he told the Independent. “Growing up, my parents and their friends revered clever comedians. I always felt that being funny was a difficult thing that people valued. As far as I can remember, I have always been driven to get up and talk in front of people even though I wasn’t naturally great at it – when I was young, I had some minor speech impediments.”

As for his gutsy New Yorker submissions, he said, “It seemed like a fun thing to try. I’ve always had a certain misplaced confidence about going after things … I’m not sure why. I think I was blessed with a certain level of obliviousness and an audacity to go for things that I found interesting/exciting.”

Samuel’s new special shows off his rapid delivery and finely honed comedic timing, and the material supports his affable relationship with the audience. The jokes in Big Talk run the gamut, covering the joys and challenges of welcoming a new puppy, the mental health benefits of knitting, the absurdity of the Honda Odyssey, being newly married (Big Talk’s jokes are “officially approved” by his spouse), and other very funny bits.

Being successful requires more than just comedic writing talent and good timing.

“Being a comedian now is like running a small business,” he said. “I have a manager now, but I still manage much of my booking, touring, and sometimes I even produce my own shows. So, I spend just as much time doing ‘comedy admin work’ as I do writing and performing material. You can’t really advance your career now by being exclusively an ‘artist.’ I maintain many comedy spreadsheets, which maybe sounds like an oxymoron.”

Even after all the commercial elements have been satisfied, there are still obstacles to confront. Being an artist who is driven to perform does not mean there are no pre-show jitters, Samuel shared. “The fact that people are coming to see me now actually makes me a bit nervous because I hope I’m as good as what they expect.”

Big Talk feels more personal than Samuel’s previous work, while also featuring plenty of material about everyday human struggles and absurdity.

“I still feel like my comedy is pretty observational but maybe I’m digging more into my personal life subconsciously now,” he acknowledged. “I think maybe I’m gravitating towards more personal material because that is what people tend to connect with more. Maybe I’m getting more inspired to do personal material because, as I get older, I think I’ve gotten a better sense of myself. I think it’s a natural part of maturing, to go from observing the world around to becoming more self-conscious. Having said that, I still love observational comedy. I think my favourite type of comedy weaves both together.”

The use of social media has its benefits, like building an audience, but it comes with costs, too.

“The pressure to produce more content has grown exponentially…. Many of the comedians who are now gaining the most fans are just churning out content,” said Samuel. “So, I do feel more pressure to do that, to keep up, but I’m pretty good at keeping it to a reasonable level so as to not burn out. I need to make sure I’m still having fun writing and performing, so I limit how much I’m going to indulge those pressures.”

But he can’t completely avoid them, as social media has the power to make or break projects in this era.

“The benefits of social media are pretty enormous, in that you can gain an audience without having to go through any gatekeepers,” said Samuel. “The risk is that you start ‘creating for the algorithm only’ and start trying to make content based on what you think will go viral as opposed to what you find funny. Then I think you just end up sounding like other comedians who are doing the same.”

Asked about the potential impacts of artificial intelligence, Samuel said. “If you asked me this a year ago, I would say I was not at all afraid of AI. It seemed that it would write jokes that were very basic, crude and pretty unfunny. However, since then, it’s gotten a lot better. I think AI can be useful in comedy but I’m also pretty worried about it. I was playing around with AI a few weeks ago and it’s getting pretty good at writing comedy that is formulaic or follows a basic structure. I’ve heard of some other comedians using it to see if their idea is creative enough – if the AI can think of it, then it’s not. It could also be useful as a brainstorming tool. I think AI will change comedy, but I don’t think it will put comics out of business because people crave human connection. Will it make comedy worse or better? It could go either way.”

AI is not the only complexity these days.

“I don’t think any topics are beyond the pale … but some are a lot harder to make an audience laugh at than others,” said Samuel. “When people complain that certain topics should not be joked about, it’s often that the jokes they’ve heard about that topic just were not clever or nuanced enough. I think the more intense and heavier the world is, the more important comedy is…. Comedy is a great way to cope with uncertainty, but I’m also concerned about the increasing amount of comedy that is just feeding off of and confirming disinformation and catering to specific groups’ political views rather than challenging them.”

Asked about what it is like to be a Jew in comedy, particularly during the events of the last couple of years, Samuel said, “I’m not sure I have a great answer…. I don’t think it’s really impacted my career. It has impacted how I feel about being a Jewish performer. I do think that it’s more important now to talk and joke about being Jewish. I definitely feel like a form of antisemitism that was previously contained has now been unleashed in several forms. My only response to that as an individual is to find more ways to joke about being Jewish on stage and not to shy away from talking about being Jewish.”

Big Talk is dedicated to the memory of Samuel’s mother, who passed away in 2021.

“It probably wouldn’t surprise people to know that my mom was my biggest supporter,” he said. “I’m sure she would’ve become a full-time press agent for this special. When I published my second book of cartoons, in 2017, she managed to get a copy to the prime minister somehow (true story). Justin Trudeau sent me a signed letter about it – he was more popular then….

“My mom made a significant professional contribution to Canada’s Jewish community,” added Samuel. “She was the executive director of Toronto’s Jewish affordable housing agency for two decades and was very proud of her work and the impact it had on helping people access affordable housing.

“When I won the Juno Award, I was in the midst of dealing with my mom being very ill. It was the most difficult thing I’ve ever had to deal with. Although I don’t talk about it explicitly, I developed most of the material for this special in the wake of losing my mom. Building this act was something I could work on to process my grief. There’s also something about losing a family member that makes you want to take action in life. It definitely contributed towards my drive to produce this show as an actual comedy special and take the risk of self-producing and self-releasing it.”

Big Talk can be seen on YouTube, which is “the only place to watch [it,] unless someone reading this owns a streaming network and wants to make a deal,” Samuel said.

As for the near future, Samuel has another “special” to produce.

“My wife and I are expecting our first child very soon,” he shared. “So, I’m going on a hiatus from touring and performing for a few months. After that, I will probably be back on the local circuit, likely with some new material about how relaxing it is to have a new baby.”

Trying to counter hate

Warren Kinsella, left, and Ben Mulroney at Montreal’s Beth Israel Beth Aaron Synagogue June 19. (photo by Dave Gordon)

In 1980, when Warren Kinsella was in Calgary performing with his punk rock band, one of his friends tapped him on the shoulder to say some men in the crowd were giving a Nazi salute.

“I didn’t believe him. I didn’t think it was possible,” said Kinsella, now a Toronto Sun columnist, at a recent talk. “There, in fact, were three big guys, shaved heads, T-shirts, jeans, suspenders, Doc Martin boots, coloured laces, and they were making Nazi salutes.”

Kinsella confronted one of them, twice asking him to stop the salutes, and was greeted with an expletive and the word “Jew.” As the Irish-Catholic Kinsella tells it, a fist came his way, he hit back – a fight involving his buddies and the skinheads erupted. Eventually, the “skinheads retreated, battered or bruised,” said Kinsella. After the show, one of them pointed at Kinsella, saying, “We’ll be back.”

“And the truth, my friends, is they never really left.”

On June 19, at Montreal’s Beth Israel Beth Aaron Synagogue, Kinsella was joined by syndicated radio host Ben Mulroney, who acted as the moderator of the event called Weaponizing Genocide: Exposing Propaganda and Hate in the Age of Misinformation. It was a fundraiser for the Foundation for Genocide Education, which was founded in 2014 by Heidi Berger, a child of Holocaust survivors. The nonprofit aims to ensure that the subject of genocide is taught in North American high schools.

Since that incident 45 years ago, Kinsella has battled Jew-hatred as a lawyer and as a journalist – at times with rifles jammed in his chest, police protection, bomb threats and death threats.

“I’ve seen lots of hate, but I have never seen it as bad as it is,” he said at the June event. What the Jewish people are fighting is not only a seven-front military war, but a propaganda war “we are losing,” he said.

Kinsella, the author of 10 books, will soon publish The Hidden Hand: The Information War and the Rise of Antisemitic Propaganda, along with an accompanying documentary.

Exactly 18 months before Oct. 7, 2023, social media profiles started popping up all around the Muslim world, Kinsella said. They had “very few followers” and were filled with “stuff about soccer matches and celebrities and pictures of kittens.” On the morning of the seventh, as Hamas and its allies were attacking Israel, thousands of these social media profiles came to life, he said, noting those that had just a few followers suddenly had half a million.

“They pushed out lies,” he said, such as “there had been no murder, no rapes.”

“It was an indication of how sophisticated and how effective these guys were, as they were able to get that word out into the stratosphere,” said Kinsella.

“Antisemites,” he added, “know that … this is the greatest political, cultural and economic revolution of our lifetimes,” with Generation Z’s primary source of information being TikTok, “one of the principal platforms for antisemitism on the planet.”

After the event, Berger told the Jewish Independent that social media literacy for students is critical, to “learn when the term genocide is being used to manipulate their views and their emotions.”

In his remarks, Kinsella said some three million members of Gen Z in Canada believe Israel should be wiped off the map and that Hamas was justified in its actions. Weeks before Israel sent troops into Gaza, he said, young people across Western democracies were chanting the lies that they had seen online.

These were organized campaigns of protests, with professionally made signs, and the “disrupting and terrorizing of Jewish neighbourhoods with military precision,” said Kinsella. “They had talking points. They had food, drink, transportation. They even had legal representation for free…. And many of them were being paid to show up.”

He said, “It was principally a campaign to seize the sympathies of our young. And it’s a campaign that’s winning.”

Kinsella, president of Daisy Consulting Group, who has worked for various high-profile US and Canadian political campaigns, noticed that protesters used pithy phrases “very much like what political mainstream parties do,” such as “from the river to the sea” and “free Palestine.”

“Who’s against freedom?” he asked. “It’s nice.”

Media, government and nongovernmental organizations continue to take Hamas at its word, said Kinsella, citing an early example. On Oct. 17, 2023, when the Gazan Health Ministry declared that Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City had been bombed by Israel and that 500 people were dead, it made headlines around the world. “The bombing was cited as evidence of Israel’s genocidal war,” yet evidence later showed it was a Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket that hit the parking lot, and perhaps a few dozen were killed.

The day of the Montreal talk, Iran bombed Soroka Medical Centre in Beer Sheva, Israel – a war crime that almost no media reported on, said Kinsella.

“The line I always use with politicians: facts tell, but stories sell,” said Kinsella. “That’s why they try to overwhelm us, because they know if our story gets heard, if it gets seen, if it gets read, they will be defeated, because, at the end of the day, their story is a litany of hate.”

Dave Gordon is a Toronto-based freelance writer whose work has appeared in more than 100 publications around the world. His website is davegordonwrites.com.

Go on offensive: Levy

Pro-Israel activist Eylon Levy speaks with an audience member before his Oct. 30 talk at Schara Tzedeck, which was presented by StandWithUs Canada. (photo by Pat Johnson)

The terrorists who perpetrated the Oct. 7 attacks were products of schools paid for in part by the Canadian government, according to Eylon Levy, a former Israeli government spokesperson who addressed an audience at Schara Tzedeck Synagogue last week.

“The Oct. 7 terrorists all went to Canadian-funded schools,” he said. “That is outrageous. It’s disgusting. You need to hold [the Canadian government] accountable and say there are consequences.”

Most schools in Gaza are run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which is funded by UN member-states, including Canada.

Levy spoke here Oct. 30 as part of a cross-Canada tour sponsored by StandWithUs Canada, a pro-Israel educational organization focused on campuses.

Levy said Israel’s recent announcement that it was banning UNRWA from operating in Israel was the right move because the agency exists to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem, not resolve it, to keep the Israeli-Arab conflict alive, to indoctrinate Palestinian children and to provide the financial safety net terrorists need to engage in violent attacks like Oct. 7.

Israel has been widely condemned for the imminent ban, which came after Israel repeatedly informed the UN that UNRWA’s staff includes known terrorists, some of whose names were provided to the UN by Israel.

“They just don’t care,” Levy said of the UN’s response that terrorists are on their payroll. “Now they claim UNRWA is irreplaceable. Well, you should have thought about that when Israel gave you the evidence that it is riddled with terrorism and you chose to deny that it was a problem.”

According to Israeli authorities, 12 UNRWA staff members actively participated in the Oct. 7 attacks, with allegations that more than 30 additional UNRWA workers were involved in activities such as facilitating hostage-taking and looting. Israel’s Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has alleged that, of the 13,000 UNRWA employees in Gaza, at least 12% are affiliated with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror groups.

In conversation with Michael Sachs, Western regional director for Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, Levy said many people are inverting right and wrong when it comes to the Israel-Hamas war and they are trying to sway young people especially.

“The world is trying to tell them that the cause of their generation, the great cause of this century, is the fight for Palestine, which means the destruction of the state of Israel,” Levy said.

Contesting these messages is tough, he said, especially when the agencies that represent the moral high-ground are on the wrong side.

Levy recalled a debate he had against broadcaster Mehdi Hasan.

“I knew he was going to come on the stage and say, ‘Well, the UN agrees with me, Oxfam agrees with me, Save the Children agrees with me, Red Cross agrees with me. How is it possible the whole world is wrong and you are right?’” Levy said. “That’s Jewish history: the courage to look around and say, ‘You’re all crazy. This isn’t right.’”

Levy noted that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a statement on social media mourning the death of Muhammad Abu Atawi, who was killed by the Israel Defence Forces.

Atawi was an employee of UNRWA but, according to Israel, he was also a Hamas terrorist who led the attack on the bomb shelter near the Nova music festival, in which Hersh Goldberg-Polin and others were sheltering.

“This is a leader I’m supposed to take seriously?” Levy asked. “The Red Cross that hasn’t lifted a finger to try to save the hostages is an organization that I am meant to take seriously? The NGOs that wouldn’t even shed crocodile tears on Oct. 7, that never tried to do any sort of campaign for the hostages, they are the ones I am meant to take seriously?”

Young people and other activists in the West who insist they are anti-Zionist and not antisemitic are deluding themselves, Levy suggested.

“You are expressing a hatred and a prejudice against the same people,” he said. “The fact that they believe that they hate the same people that their grandparents hated but it’s a complete coincidence shows a tragic lack of self-awareness.”

Getting the pro-Israel message out is especially challenging on social media, said Levy, but Jews and their allies can’t give up the battle.

Social media is problematic at the best of times – even when it is not a platform controlled by the Chinese regime, as TikTok is – because it maximizes engagement by provoking outrage and amplifies the most extreme viewpoints.

“We’re not going to win the social media battle,” he said. “But we can’t afford not to fight it.”

If the only thing that people see on social media are anti-Israel messages, what conclusion will people come to? he asked.

“But what if their friend, the person they know is a good, decent person, stands up and presents a contrary view?” said Levy. “Then at least you’ve made that person think this is complicated and there’s a case to be made on the other side. So, it requires all of us to be there, to fight the fight, to be as loud and vocal and produce as much stuff as possible.”

That battle of ideas also needs to be taken offline, he said.

It is further complicated, he added, because the Israeli government has effectively given up communicating to the world.

Levy, who was born in England to Israeli parents and made aliyah as a lone soldier, was effectively conscripted to serve as an English-language spokesperson at the beginning of the war. He was fired after a social media spat with Britain’s then-foreign secretary David Cameron. Levy cofounded the Israeli Citizen Spokespersons’ Office, which tries to fill the information gap he said the Israeli government has left.

Pro-Israel voices in the West need to change tack, according to Levy. Rather than being on the defensive and explaining Israel’s actions, Canadians and others should be calling out governments and NGOs.

“Other people owe us answers,” he said. “UNRWA owes us answers. The Red Cross owes us answers. The UN owes us answers. I think we have to go on the offensive and demand those answers from other people instead of constantly trying to defend ourselves and say, ‘I can explain.’”

Levy dismisses calls for a ceasefire. The war needs to end in the defeat of Hamas – and it’s all over but the surrender, he argued.

“Hamas has lost,” he said. “It’s game over.”

But Hamas needs the world to help it understand that fact.

“The problem is, when international actors step in to demand a ceasefire, as opposed to Hamas’s surrender, they tell Hamas to keep fighting,” he said. With Hamas on its knees, “It’s outrageous that some countries are trying to get it back up on its feet.”

Hezbollah has also been largely eliminated, according to Levy.

“All of its top leadership are dead,” he said. “The infrastructure along the border has been destroyed.”

Iran, of course, remains unbowed, even in the face of the damage Israel has inflicted on its proxies.

Levy said one outcome from the current crisis is that Jewish communities have come together. In Israel, individuals instantly mobilized on Oct. 7 to do whatever they could and, in the diaspora, Jews have united as they rarely have before.

“That sense of responsibility, that sense of solidarity, being there for each other and having each other’s backs, I find incredibly inspiring,” he said. “That awakening of responsibility and self-reliance and leadership in Jewish communities around the world has been an inspiration to people in Israel.”

Jesse Primerano, executive director of StandWithUs Canada, which brought Levy to Vancouver, said his group has 106 interns and fellows on campuses across Canada this year – an increase over past years and a happy surprise for Primerano. He was afraid for the organization’s programs this year, he said, concerned that they wouldn’t be able to recruit students to stand for Israel on campuses. The opposite happened.

“Numbers skyrocketed,” he said. “The truth is that they are not scared. They are empowered. They are emboldened … and they are so brave and ready to stand up.”

SWU has also hired more staff across Canada, including a full-time position in Vancouver funded by the Diamond Foundation.

Three students from Vancouver-area campuses who are part of the SWU Emerson Fellowship program spoke to the audience, drawing ovations.

False binaries harmful

It is perhaps inevitable that, at a time of polarized thinking, many people seem incapable of holding two ideas in their minds at once.

Canadian politics has maybe not succumbed to the depths of entrenched division we see in our neighbours to the south, where Democrat-versus-Republican has taken on a tribal identification. However, almost every democratic society is experiencing intense divisions not only in opinion but in identification. That is, our identities, including political stands, are prioritized to represent core personal traits. If we identify less as, say “a Canadian who votes for the Purple Party,” but instead as “a Purple Canadian,” it can feel threatening to have a conversation with someone of different opinions.

Social media is a significant driver of this phenomenon. Not only do the algorithms embolden and reify extremism, but we are encouraged to share these extreme opinions. Inflammatory ideas that we once might have kept to ourselves are posted for all to see – and, if someone disagrees, we may perceive it as a personal attack and feel encouraged to carry out an online vendetta. In times past, we may have suspected that our neighbour or relative held ideas we disagreed with. Now, we may know what our friends and neighbours think and feel about myriad issues – and we might be motivated to take them on in a virtual slugfest over those differences.

In theory, this is a good thing – but only in theory. In a perfect world, social media gives us the opportunity to engage one another in informed, enriching dialogue. Clearly, the joke’s on us.

In reality, social media reduces the quality of dialogue to a dismissive, insulting snapback. Moreover, the comparative anonymity of the platforms gives us licence to vent our worst impulses with few checks and balances embedded in the systems.

It is in this troubled online culture that the current war between Israel and Hamas is being addressed by Canadians.

The context is additionally challenged by recent changes to Canadian law. The federal government reasonably demanded that social media platforms pay news producers for the content shared on their platforms. In response, the platforms blocked the content rather than pay for it. A business can choose whether to retail what others are wholesaling, to use a clunky parallel. Of course, social media platforms are not just any business. It is fair to argue that they are a form of public utility and so should be governed by different standards. That, though, is a discussion for a different time. Bottom line is that Canadians are debating online over current events without the advantage of sharing professional news content, with predictable outcomes around reach and veracity.

Binary or polarized thinking plays another role.

Antisemitism, as any reader knows, is at levels most of us have not seen in our living memories. This is not incidental to the current war but, crucially, neither is the war the cause. Antisemitism lies in wait, depending on an external spark to set it aflame. Nothing Israel does (or, for that matter, anything Hamas does) is the cause of antisemitism in Canada. We need to address domestic bigotry for what it is. The purest proof: other international disputes rarely, if ever, result in eruptions of racism in Canada … why does this one?

In response to concerns around antisemitism, we see – usually online, because that is where these sorts of “conversations” happen most visibly – many people responding predictably. If there is antisemitism in Canada, a common theme goes, blame Israel’s actions or existence. A slightly more extreme variation makes the case that, at a time when it is alleged that Palestinians are experiencing genocide or ethnic cleansing, why are we wasting time talking about (the presumably relatively inconsequential matter of) antisemitism?

At a minimum, the response to such ideas should be that two things can be true at the same time. There may be unfolding tragedies in the Middle East … but there is also racism at home that demands addressing. And, no, one cannot wait until the other is resolved. Just as we should be capable of holding two ideas at once, we must be able to condemn injustice at home and abroad. Why is this difficult?

Binary thinking implies that injustice abroad displaces injustice at home. The message many of us see on social media is, put bluntly, Canadian Jews should keep quiet about their problems, complaints or experiences while Palestinians are dying.

Something we can keep in mind when engaging online, in real time, or however we participate, is that our activism on global affairs, including those places in which we have a personal stake, is vital and necessary. But it also has very limited impacts globally. The Israeli government, Hamas and the international entities engaged in what negotiations exist are, frankly, not going to be moved much by marching Canadians or millions of memes on social media. Those who are going to be affected are our neighbours and family, who see often harmful, hateful and insensitive comments and feel bereft, anxious and alone.

We need to keep in mind this: whatever we say about Israel-Palestine lands hardest on the ears, hearts and minds closest to us. Condemning Israelis or Palestinians (or anyone else) has minimal effect in Israel or Palestine. It causes plenty of pain right here at home.

Critical thinking a vital skill

As a 20-something in the mid-1990s, I taught high school English. Part of my course load was a collaborative Grade 10 World Civilizations course that I co-taught with a social studies teacher. One day, I flippantly advertised our next assignment to a room of 16-year-olds, saying, “Oh, hey, we’re going to start reading Candide by Voltaire next week! You’ll love it! It’s full of sex, drugs and violence.”

To my surprise, many of those students talked to their parents. I received a flurry of concerned phone calls, messages and emails. Parents were worried about the curriculum. In the end, my explanations were successful. Yes, it’s true that Candide is probably rated R, but this fantastical satire was first published in 1759. It’s a famous classic, it’s definitely “literature,” with lots of intrigue and ideas we can learn from – and, oh yeah, it’s not true.

Literature teachers often speak of the great truths found in the classics, but fiction isn’t “the truth.” It’s complicated to untangle, and that’s why we study it to develop our critical thinking skills. In our multi-discipline history and English course, we had opportunities to discuss how history evolved, how we could examine primary sources to draw conclusions, and more. Literature was just a part of our opportunity to read and analyze important texts.

All this came to mind recently when some antisemitic posts came my way via social media concerning the Talmud. People started quoting the Talmud and inferring from brief quotations that Jews did all sorts of evil things. This was something of a modern blood libel approach; using brief snippets out of the huge body of law and literary work to condemn an entire ethnoreligious group. What followed was both a lot of nonsense and some deep belly laughs from Jews and scholars who study Talmud. Now, if you want to understand this text, buy all the tractates of the Babylonian (and don’t forget the Jerusalem) Talmud. You’re looking at a several-thousand-dollar purchase, which you can’t read unless you know Aramaic and Mishnaic Hebrew, as well as Rashi script, to read his commentary.

In recent years, Sefaria, an online database, has offered access to Talmud and many other Jewish texts, both in the original and in translation, for free. It’s been a tremendous gift and democratization of these ancient texts. However, having access doesn’t mean you have understanding. Like reading Candide for the first time, it’s helpful to have a teacher, some historical context, and lots of support to aid in your comprehension. These online X commenters, taking short rabbinic quotes out of context, had no idea what they were talking about. In many cases, the Talmud’s rabbinic musings explore arbitrary legal situations that never happened in order to explore and define the minutiae of Jewish law.

Also online, I saw others bemoaning how learning historical “facts” seemed solid and unquestionable – dates and events – but that, with modern events, it seemed hard to define what had happened and what was true as compared to misinformation. This anecdotal experience is common but it’s misleading. It takes a long time to establish a common narrative around a historical event, and “the winners” of war or political events create their version of history. Using multiple primary sources, as well as multiple historians’ accounts, helps learners see how historians lend their biases to their interpretation of what happened. We only get a full picture of “what happened” through exploring many perspectives from multiple sources. Even then, it’s hard to know if the history we’ve learned is “true,” or not.

Developing a mature understanding of literature and world events requires us to be critical thinkers. As F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote in 1936, “… the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

I’d say that, often, intelligent people explore complex political, historical, social or literary scenarios that hold multiple opposing ideas at once. But this kind of learning takes time and energy. It does not happen automatically. Our society loves binaries, where we get a quick yes/no answer.

My kids aren’t in high school. Yet, as a parent, I look forward to the day they come home excited about a “mature” literature assignment full of “sex, drugs and violence.” Each new milestone achieved fills me with hope. This year, for the first time, I have two kids who skate on their own, and I don’t always have to lace them up. At the same time, we’re trying to get to complex, but age-appropriate understandings of the Hamas-Israel war. We explore what is happening along with how the media depicts the situation. Who shapes our understanding of what’s happening? How? Most difficult is exploring the questions around whether anyone “wins” in a war when there is so much suffering involved.

The world is complicated. We can use literature and ideas for enjoyment, but also as tools to help think about big issues. Thinking critically about complex issues is a sign of intelligence and maturity. We must cultivate this skill. I hope it’s something my kids achieve as those long-ago high school students did.

Critical thinking is also a lens through which to examine the multiple simplistic social media and news narratives we’re facing every day. One can ask why the description of an event is so simplistic or who is consistently blamed in the narrative. Often, a short take on Talmud doesn’t demonstrate a deep understanding. A news article that fails to include the back story isn’t going to cut it. A view that always blames only one country – Israel – or one ethnoreligious group – Jews – might be similarly flawed.

Developing our thinking skills enables us to understand complexity. It also helps us discern an argument’s flaws. Let’s nurture smart thinkers so they can recognize and discard the nonsense, misinformation and hate that pops up so frequently now online and in the news.

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for the Winnipeg Free Press and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

Nuance is vital path to empathy

On the morning of Oct. 7, 2023, I was in Vancouver, celebrating the holiday of Simchat Torah with my family. We woke up, my father went to synagogue, and I lay on the couch sipping coffee and reading a book. Four hours later, I was sitting on the couch of the Mizrachi family. Ben Mizrachi z”l was one of my brother’s closest childhood friends, a pillar of joy in our community, and an attendee of the Nova Music Festival in Israel on Friday evening. I watched for two days in helpless disbelief as his parents waited to hear whether their son was alive. On the third day, his body was identified.

By Oct. 9, I had already unfollowed one of my friends on Instagram. By Oct. 19, the number had become too many to count. I opened my friends’ Instagram stories with a pit of dread in my stomach, wishing I could stop looking, but feeling compelled to know where they stood. Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is safety. I watched, feeling resentful and hopeless as friends with no lived experience in this conflict posted comparisons between the Israeli government and Nazi Germany, tokenized anti-Zionist Jewish voices, spread demonizing misinformation, labeled Israelis “European settler-colonialists” and justified sexual violence in the name of “resistance” and “liberation.”

Humans crave consistency. We naturally gravitate towards narratives with a clear villain and an undeniable victim. Research on cognitive dissonance theory has demonstrated that we experience intense psychological discomfort when faced with information that conflicts with a preconceived belief. In response, we can either change the preconceived belief, which requires us to admit we were previously wrong, or we can discount and discredit the new information to protect our self-image. The dominant narrative in liberal North American circles has become that Jews and Israelis are colonizers in a land stolen from Palestinians. In accordance with cognitive dissonance theory, if Jews and Israelis are oppressors, we cannot also be victims. So, we must not be victims, after all. This narrative feeds into classic stereotypes about Jews as powerful, wealthy, manipulative and, in modern parlance, privileged.

Prejudice and discrimination have psychological benefits. Research shows that the act of derogating a member of a stereotyped group has positive implications for self-esteem. One foundational study by Fein and Spencer (1997) found discriminating against a woman who fit the stereotype of a “Jewish American Princess” dramatically improved participants’ self-esteem after receiving negative feedback. In other words, putting others down makes us feel better. Many in my social circles would balk at the mere thought of discriminating against a marginalized group. Yet, if you can convince yourself that a marginalized group is privileged, you can reap the self-esteem benefits of derogation without suffering cognitive dissonance. If Jews are oppressors and not victims, then discrimination is not only warranted, it feels good.

In the study conducted by Fein and Spencer in 1997, research participants enacted their discrimination in private, by degrading the Jewish subject’s personality and job qualifications. Today, we can perform our discrimination publicly through social media. Public discrimination maintains the self-esteem benefits of private discrimination, with the bonus of entrenching belonging within a social in-group. Humans have a fundamental need to belong. We fulfil this need by affiliating ourselves with social in-groups based on race, ethnicity, disability, music preference and TV-show character fandoms. Posting socio-political stances on social media is not simply about sharing information, it is a means of signalling affiliation with a valued in-group of social justice advocates. The opportunity to simultaneously derive a self-esteem boost from the derogation of Jews is a heady combination.

Despite our pursuit of certainty in the face of cognitive dissonance, certainty is the enemy of knowledge, nuance and, in the context of the Israel-Hamas war and other conflicts or social divisions, empathy. Research in social psychology has shown that the more certain we feel about our socio-political opinions, the less likely we are to seek out information that might challenge our beliefs. Those who feel certain in their characterization of the current Israel-Hamas war as morally unambiguous cannot cave to nuance, lest their psychological well-being suffer. Yet, the embrace of two opposing truths is at the core of seeing each other as human, capable of being both villain and victim in the same breath. Sitting with cognitive dissonance is painful, but it is the only path to true empathy.

Shira Mattuck, MA, is a clinical child psychology doctoral student in the Genetics and Neurobehavioural Systems: Interdisciplinary Studies (GENESIS) Lab at the University of Houston. She was born and raised in Vancouver and is a graduate of Vancouver Hebrew Academy and York House School.

Deep, dangerous bias

The sale by George Soros of a (comparatively) modest holding in Elon Musk’s Tesla car company seems to have sent Musk into a Twitter tirade last week.

“He wants to erode the very fabric of civilization,” Musk tweeted in a reckles overreaction. “Soros hates humanity.”

The context of the smear is worth a moment of consideration. A man who sinks a chunk of his estimated $185 billion US pile into a space flight hobby says that a man who has donated (at a minimum) $32 billion US into building civil society in the former Soviet bloc and other countries “hates humanity.”

Beyond this context is a whole lot of subtext.

There is nothing essentially wrong with a public figure criticizing another public figure. If the target feels he has been libeled, there are legal recourses available. That’s not really the issue here.

As one of the world’s foremost funders of liberal causes, Soros draws criticism from plenty of people who don’t agree with his politics. Fair enough. But “Soros” has become a shorthand. Generations of people have used the name “Rothschild” to invoke a conspiracy of Jewish wealth and power. “Soros” is a 21st-century update of that conspiracy.

This is a bit dicey. It is fair to criticize someone who dumps billions of dollars into causes you disagree with. If the person happens to be Jewish, that doesn’t make you antisemitic. If you use that person’s name as a stand-in for a complex of ideas about Jews more generally manipulating events with wealth and the manipulative force that can come with it, that is antisemitic. But, of course, getting into the head of a suspected bigot is impossible. One person can accuse another of racism, the accused can deny it and neither is any further ahead. Sometimes the accused may not even be conscious of what they have done.

But Musk tipped his hand. He launched his outburst with: “Soros reminds me of Magneto.”

Magneto is a villain in the Marvel Comics franchise X-Men. Like Soros, Magneto is a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust.

The idea that Soros “hates humanity” is an especially laden accusation. It seems like a peculiar assertion – unless one is familiar with centuries of slander against Jewish people, which has posited that Jews are the embodiment of Satan, the enemy of all things good. In Christian theology, including official Catholic doctrine until the mid-1960s, Jews were accused of deicide, of literal God-killing, of destroying what is most sacred to humanity. To accuse a Jew in 2023 of hating humanity – and all that implies in the context of funding social change movements – is to invoke (intentionally or not) millennia of deadly ideas about Jewish evil-doing. To also invoke a (Jewish) cartoon villain in the process makes Musk’s playing to pervasive tropes about Soros, money, Jews and power seem more deliberate.

This is what is so confounding about racism and bigotry in general, and antisemitism in particular: it so often manifests not as outright intolerance and hatred but as unconscious or barely conscious bias that motivates our beliefs and actions without us knowing it. In some ways, this is the more frightening prospect. It is easy to identify and condemn the most overt acts of racism or hatred. Parsing and reproving harmful, unconscious ideas is much more challenging.

We are not all in a position (thankfully!) to have our Tweets or other late-night brainwaves analyzed by millions. Musk hosts a powerful platform and his speech can move financial markets and mobilize followers. Ideally, he may take time to reflect on whether he carries unconscious biases that need examining.

For us, there are at least two lessons. First, we are reminded that confronting antisemitism is not as easy as condemning those who exhibit the most obvious signs. Second, while we are critical of one of the most prominent people in the world letting slip what appear to be deep-seated conspiratorial ideas that project onto a single individual a host of negative characteristics attributed to the group to which he belongs, we would do well to consider how we use the platforms we each have in our daily lives in the service of justice, anti-racism and truth.

Every person has a voice

Elon Musk’s purchase of the social media behemoth Twitter, which appears probable, is raising questions about what the new management could mean to users and society at large. For Jewish tweeters and others, there are red flags.

The growth of social media of all varieties over the past 15 years has resulted in a massive change in the public dialogue. People have some ability to amplify or diminish the voices they do or do not want to hear, resulting in an unprecedented ability to self-select the information (or misinformation) to which we are exposed. The relative anonymity of the media has had additional harmful impacts, with racist, misogynistic, homophobic, antisemitic and other hateful statements being posted in volumes too massive to effectively police. The spike in antisemitic hate crimes we have seen in recent years is almost certainly a result, in part, of online antisemitism moving into the “real” world.

Since 2016, when Russian and other bad actors influenced the U.S. presidential election in favour of Donald Trump, some platforms, including Twitter, have been driven to address some of the most egregious content on their sites and abuse of the medium. Their efforts, however imperfect and inadequate, reflect an assumption that hate speech should not be accepted.

Musk’s planned purchase of Twitter (which has a number of hurdles yet to overcome) raises fears among some that his self-identification as a “free speech absolutist” may reverse the small strides Twitter has made in addressing hate speech.

If Musk, who is presumed to be the richest person on earth and who is known to be a micromanager, chooses to imprint on Twitter his vision of absolute free speech, we should expect the limited efforts to police the worst content will be diminished or eliminated.

Of course, Musk would not be the final arbiter of what is acceptable. He may be the richest person on earth and Twitter may be among the most powerful communications platforms ever known, but they are still subject to government oversight.

Among the challenges, of course, is that Twitter, like the rest of the internet, effectively knows no national boundaries. So, while the United States is lenient toward extreme speech, different countries take a different approach.

For example, Canada’s Parliament is considering two proposals to make it illegal to deny or diminish the historical facts of the Holocaust. Legislation like this – as well as existing hate crimes laws that prohibit the targeting of identifiable groups – will inevitably come up against transnational norms set by platforms like Twitter. Will social media platforms face endless legal challenges? Or will the sheer volume of offences make it impossible to challenge any but the most outrageous affronts?

Canadians have always had a different approach to free speech than our American cousins. Our Parliament, like many in Europe, recognizes limitations in the interest of national harmony. These often lead to contentious debates over where lines should be drawn. Introduce an anarchic, foreign-owned social media platform into the equation and these discussions become far more complicated.

These are difficult issues. In a perfect world, absolute free speech would be ideal, because, again in a perfect world, individuals themselves would balance their right to expression with their responsibilities as citizens of a pluralistic society. But, we do not live in a perfect world and some compulsion sadly seems necessary to prevent, say, outright incitement to murder or genocide.

Here, though, is something not difficult or complicated at all – we do not need legislation or philosophical debates around freedom in order to counter hate speech right now. In this space, over many years, we have argued that the best way to confront bad, or hateful, speech is not stifling that speech, but countering it with truth, compassion and decency. Silencing hatred (even if it were possible in the wired world) will not eliminate hatred. We are in a war of words, and more words, not fewer, should be our approach.

A magnificent case-in-point occurred in the past month.

After the student society of the University of British Columbia passed a resolution endorsing the boycott movement against Israel, Santa Ono, the president of the university, responded with a thoughtful statement condemning BDS.

Too often, destructive, hateful messages like anti-Israel boycott resolutions are met with silence, usually with the excuse that such resolutions or protests are legitimate expressions of free speech. Of course, they may well be. But this argument, which was used by UBC administrators and others in the past, misses the point. Free speech does not mean the right to have one’s opinions uncontested. As Ono’s statement makes clear, both sides have a right to have their voices heard. That is free speech.

At a time when too many campuses across North America are roiling with anti-Israel spectacles, the significance of a statement like Ono’s did not go unnoticed. In fact, the university president received a letter from another president. Isaac Herzog, the president of Israel, wrote a “Dear Santa” letter, thanking Ono for his unequivocal statement.

That Israel’s head of state would intervene to express gratitude for Ono’s statement is itself a statement of how serious the threats are from uncontested hate speech. But it also reminds us that we do not need legislation or courts to stand up – as individuals and as a community – against egregious attacks. Every person has a voice. Some use it to spread misinformation and hatred. Others use it for good.

The kill fee – and its fallout

I was honoured with the opportunity to chant the first aliyah for the Torah portion Aharei Mot. I’m still new to chanting Torah, so I practise every day. I can read and translate Torah but, for some reason, I didn’t reflect on what I was reading at first. I was chanting that very sensitive set of instructions given from G-d to Moses to pass along to his brother Aaron.

A few weeks ago, we read in Leviticus 10:1-7 that Aaron’s sons Nadav and Abihu offered “strange” or “alien” fire. Their sacrifice was overeager and unusual. They drew “too close” – in some readings of Leviticus 16:1 – to G-d and were struck down. They were killed.

After the death of Aaron’s sons, the instructions Moses passes along to Aaron are crucial. He isn’t to go into the Holy of Holies, behind the curtain, because G-d dwells in a cloud above the cover. Aaron’s sacrifices and his approach to the holiest spaces are scripted, careful and correct. When reading rabbis’ commentaries on this, their thoughts are all over the place, from quoting Sting’s lyrics “Don’t Stand so Close to Me” to talking about vulnerability and the divine. This is a text that has a lot to unpack.

As a freelancer, I do writing and editing jobs with various deadlines. Sometimes, I write a piece months in advance, submit, and hear nothing back until the publication arrives in the mail with payment. With other jobs, I get to revise and review copy edits, the editor says exactly when the piece will run and I’m paid early without prompting. Others require me to submit an invoice or I don’t get paid at all. Every gig is different. I’ve even worked for publications that have gone bankrupt before my article was to appear. So, I did all the work but, in the end, received nothing, not even a publication credit.

In other situations, I write or edit something with a short deadline. These can be very satisfying jobs that happen quickly. Sometimes, it’s a political analysis piece that runs in the newspaper. Other times, it’s a healthcare editing job that might improve the lives of breastfeeding moms. There’s a thrill to a tight deadline where I manage to get it done, and perhaps make a difference.

Before Passover, I submitted some queries (ideas) to a publication with which I’d worked before. I got a very fast response. The editor said she’d been about to write on one of these topics. Would I cover it instead? I said sure, asking for her outline and any other details she wanted included. Instead, she suggested I write it on my own, without her outline. I did this as fast as I could, as I also faced the hard deadline of cleaning and cooking for the holiday. I asked for quick feedback, since my time was limited, but I didn’t receive any.

Almost a week later, the editor asked me for revisions, asking why I didn’t include several items, which were on her mental checklist, unbeknown to me. I didn’t feel prepared to do it, but I researched and did one more rewrite before Pesach.

During the middle of the Passover, the copy edits arrived. I’d never seen so many before! Much of it seemed to ask me to prove mundane things with academic sources. Many copy editors have provided me with corrections and solutions over the years, and it’s usually just an “approve” track changes or a comment or two to move ahead. Responding to these comments took nearly three hours. I felt as though perhaps I’d written something wrong, although I’d been researching, writing and teaching on the topic for years.

The next day, I received a note from the editor. It would take too long for us to come to agreement over the edits. I was sent a “kill fee.” A kill fee is usually a quarter to a third of the amount agreed to for the whole project, if the project cannot go forward. This was a bit of a relief. I had more time for the holiday. I could be done with a hassle that already had earned me less than minimum wage.

Moments after I accepted the kill fee, the editor was on social media, writing glib jokes about the article topic and how she had to write the article herself. So, not only had I lost the gig, but there was some shame now, too. This was public “punishment.” Somehow, I’d been incapable of writing on this supposedly easy topic. With the holiday’s end and Shabbat approaching, I had ample time to reflect on the crummy experience.

For context … in the book Little Women, published more than 150 years ago, the character of Jo March is offered a $100 US prize payment for a story she wrote. I was offered $150 Cdn to write this story and paid a kill fee $50 Cdn.

When I thought back on Aaron’s painful loss of Nadav and Abihu, and how they’d been warned not to do things the wrong way, I wondered what lessons I could find there. I don’t make sacrifices at an altar. I never want to lose my children in such an awful way. However, on a much smaller scale, I pushed myself too hard to meet an elusive last-minute work goal. It cut me close when I failed, and then to be shamed via social media for it. I had my work “killed” – perhaps because my writing failed to come close enough to the editor’s ideas, or maybe because it was a little too detailed or uncomfortable and they questioned it. Who knows? Just as we will never know what Nadav and Abihu were thinking, I couldn’t be inside this editor’s thoughts either.

Unlike Aaron, I don’t have to work with this editor/client again. Aaron serves G-d, and cannot make the same mistakes his sons did. He is in a painful place where he must learn to do better. I, too, am in a place where I need to reconsider how I work and what I will work towards.

Luckily, I didn’t lose anything so precious as did Aaron. I can still explore how to make things better – it’s important to find a work/life balance that works, because that article was not worth the hassle. As the TV advertisement goes, some (important) things, like our family and holiday celebrations, are priceless.

Joanne Seiff has written regularly for CBC Manitoba and various Jewish publications. She is the author of three books, including From the Outside In: Jewish Post Columns 2015-2016, a collection of essays available for digital download or as a paperback from Amazon. Check her out on Instagram @yrnspinner or at joanneseiff.blogspot.com.

Positive Jewish leaders online

It’s hard not to doom scroll lately, but I’ve been heartened by watching Jewish leaders take centre stage via social media. These are bright spots in a difficult time. Here are a few to Google and follow. I’ve learned a lot online this way. Perhaps you might, too.

In the world of social media and Talmud study (yes, that’s a thing!), the short social media videos of Miriam Anzovin have gotten a lot of attention. She offers TikTok, YouTube and Instagram posts and links via Twitter. These are on the Daf Yomi, the 7.5-year cycle where one studies a page of Talmud a day. Anzovin’s amazing effort offers a brief summary and analysis of some of the big rabbinic issues. It’s also a breath of fresh air in a field historically dominated by men. Anzovin is a writer and visual artist. She describes her videos as “Daf Yomi reaction videos.” These takes often include slang, curse words, and perhaps difficult interpretations for the usual Jewish text study audience.

Some Orthodox men have voiced criticism to this approach to Talmud study. I would argue that this is a defensive, unhelpful reaction. More Talmud study is good. Talmud study of any kind, is, quite simply – more. It brings more attention to Jewish text and ideas, which is a good thing both for Judaism and for intellectual analysis. Sometimes, the reaction stems from being forced to admit that there are other perspectives and ways of reading religious text. Anzovin centres women’s voices, issues and opinions, critical thinking, liberal and modern views of very old texts. Social media offers her a perfect platform and her work has taken off. It’s long past due. I’m thrilled to see her show up in my feed.

Rabbi Sandra Lawson has been one to follow for awhile. She’s a leader – an activist, a musician and a teacher. Her social media presence allows me to learn a lot. I’ve learned Torah, said Kaddish, and more. Through her anecdotes, she’s encouraged hard examination of ways in which racism is a problem in Jewish life. She’s taken on a lot of firsts in both her former role as the associate chaplain for Jewish life at Elon University and is now the first director of racial diversity, equity and inclusion at Reconstructing Judaism. She was the first African American and first openly gay African American accepted by the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. Her open, strong online presence embodies many things Judaism needs to see: her identity as a veteran, vegan, personal trainer, musician and wise educator pushes the boundaries of what some people think Jews or rabbis look like. For younger Jews on the web, seeing her laughing with her wife Susan, featuring her little dogs as she makes music – these are models of joyful, modern Jewish life that we need now more than ever.

What does informal Jewish education look like on Instagram? Well, many people source Jewish news specifically from A Wider Frame (@awiderframe).

Debbie, the jewelry designer behind @rootsmetals, posts deep dives into very specific historic, geographic and cultural Jewish topics. It comes complete with bibliographies. Prepare for her snarky responses to trolls (ever present online) who try to threaten her well-being.

Ashager Araro, @blackjewishmagic, is a liberal, feminist, Black Israeli. She does incredible work as an educator in person in Israel. She’s also on Instagram and Twitter, and travels to speak at Hillels and Jewish student centres in the United States. Her focus on Ethiopian Israeli history and modern Jewish life is illuminating, particularly for those who view race only through a parochial North American lens.

Some social media education targets a specific group. For example, Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll speaks out for others who aren’t able to in the Orthodox world. She tackles the issue of agunot. Agunot are women who cannot obtain a Jewish divorce from their husbands and are unable to remarry according to Jewish law. Keats-Jaskoll also works to provide modest images of women through an internationally sourced photo bank. This works to combat the erasure of women’s faces and bodies and imagery in Orthodox photos, publications and Israeli billboards. Chochmat-Nashim (Women’s Wisdom), her organization, advocates for Orthodox women, including both modern Orthodox and Haredi groups in Israel and the diaspora.

This is just a taste of what’s out there. It’s a start to diversifying your feed. You may have noticed that I started by writing about leaders I admire and, guess what? They’re all women. It’s not that I don’t admire some male leaders. There are plenty of them and some of them are fine human beings – but too many “leader lists” leave women out entirely. March 8 is International Women’s Day. It’s one thing to say we advocate for equality, and to celebrate women’s achievements on a specific day. It’s another to raise up, embrace and educate on a daily basis.

Our tradition offers us moments to celebrate women’s roles, such as the recitation of Woman of Valour (Eishet Chayil) in some homes on Shabbat. However, that’s not a standard practice in every household. Plus, it’s only one moment of one day of a week, when Jewish women are contributing 24/7.

Many of our paid leaders, rabbis and cantors, and even volunteers, such as synagogue board members, are men. It’s been “traditional” to embrace a male leadership model in some communities. However, in an era when more of our lives are both online and more egalitarian, it’s OK to stop the doom scrolling and open up one’s mind – and feed – to some new leaders. In this case, they also just happen to identify as Jewish women.