How to tell the difference between a legitimate argument and well disguised hate speech ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Thursday, November 20, 2025

How to tell the difference between a legitimate argument and well disguised hate speech

As I've been saying, I've developed a philosophy called Derechology based on Jewish thinking that is an entirely different way of looking at the world than what all of us have learned in the West - and it is much more closely aligned with reality.

The sheer amount of antisemitic lies online is overwhelming. And, as I've seen firsthand over the past two decades of blogging, facts themselves are not enough of a defense. The forces of hate make their arguments more sophisticated over time to obfuscate the facts. The third party observer cannot tell which set of facts is accurate so in the end they choose to trust one side, and very often that side is the one that gives the answers that are attractive, not accurate - seeming solutions that appeal to emotion and to self-interest.

Blaming an entire class of people for one's problems is incredibly attractive.

So I worked with an AI to use my Derechology framework to come up with an audit - a test that anyone can use to determine if an argument they see online is legitimate criticism or just well disguised hate.

We came up with a four part test. All four tests must be passed for the argument to be legitimate. It is not based on fact, but on structure - the haters' argument must use a structure that itself is destructive, while legitimate debaters use a more positive, constructive structure.

Here are the four tests and how they apply to modern antisemitism, but they work for everyone, Right or Left or in between.

The Goal Test:

Legitimate critique aims to improve and build. Critique focuses on correcting flaws to achieve a better outcome, such as greater dignity, life, or justice.

Hate aims to sever and purify: The haters' claims focus on elimination of the target to achieve their aims. The goal is not reform, but removal of their opponent.

Using modern antisemitism as an example, you never hear anti-Zionists say they want to improve Israeli society to fix problems of inequality or helping achieve peace. They position all of Israel as evil. This is the logic of BDS - even the biggest critics of Israel are guilty and must be silenced if they do not share the maximalist goals of the haters.

Focusing on the arguments gives them a victory because their eliminationist goals are considered to be morally equivalent to side that wants to survive. They are not - they are simply hate, and the structure of their supposed criticism reveals that.

The Process Test:

Legitimate critique uses reasoning that is transparent, falsifiable, and open to change if new evidence contradicts its premise.

Hate's narrative converts all criticism, counter-evidence, or opposition into proof of the enemy's cunning or deceit, thus self-validating the original hatred. No facts will change their position, when confronted they will rely on conspiracy theory. Haters run away from debate that may expose this.

The Diagnosis Test:

Legitimate debaters accept complexity and context. They acknowledges the target is complex, capable of being both positive and negative like everyone else. Real debaters critique actions or policies, not the identity.

The haters enforce a totalizing binary. Their claim structurally defines the target as monolithic evil. They rejects all evidence of complexity because the simplicity of the binary is essential for their philosophy.

You will often find the anti-Zionists say this explicitly and proudly, telling their followers not to accept the idea that the conflict is complex. This is the psychology behind the genocide lie: not just that the facts don't support it, but the accusation itself was chosen to paint the Israelis as cartoon-villain, Nazi-level evil.

The Target Test:

Legitimate critics will only talk about actions and policies. Their language is proportional and focused on behaviors. They never deny the target's inherent dignity and humanity. They separate acts from people.

Haters attack the identity and/or existence of their targets. The language is disproportionate, dehumanizing, and justifies or advocates for relational severance (destruction, elimination, banishment). They deny their target's basic human dignity and claim that their opponents have forfeited having any rights altogether.

As mentioned, failing any one of these tests shows that the argument is not legitimate to begin with, no matter what facts they claim to have. The style itself delegitimizes them because it betrays their true goal are not critique but power.

Indeed, sometimes one comes across a sophisticated hater who skillfully cherry picks absolutely true claims to build their case which is ultimately bigoted. Pointing out their omissions, while necessary, is rarely a winning strategy because the people who are not emotionally invested in the debate will tend to believe the confident side with seemingly lots of facts over the opponents who are forced, always, into a defensive position.

When the arguments are only about the facts, the haters are legitimized. But they cannot change the structure of their arguments, because their goal is never truth but destroying their opponents' legitimacy and humanity. Anti-Zionists cannot claim to only be criticizing Israeli policy, because there is nothing Israel can do to satisfy them. They cannot admit when their facts are wrong - they double down and insist that counterproofs are fabricated. (They still insist there were no rapes October 7.) They cannot admit that Israel might have a legitimate reason to do what it does. They cannot agree to Israel's existence or legitimacy or right to defend itself in any conceivable universe. These aren't factual issues - they are structural in their positions. And that is what shows that they are using the pretense of honest argument to look like they are "just criticizing."

This audit indeed shows that some anti-Palestinian, anti-Muslim arguments have some or all of the same features. And those arguments should be condemned as well. There are plenty of ways to strongly oppose policies, call out immoral actions and expose systemic problems without attacking the dignity of every member of those groups.

This test exposes what Derechology proves: that with the correct structure there are multiple ways to have a moral position, but without a proper structure things can and will go very bad.

Here is a summary of the Structural Integrity Audit:

Test Category	Legitimate Opinion (Structurally Sound)	Structural Hate (Malignant)
1. The Goal Test	Aims to Improve and Build: Critique focuses on correcting flaws in policy, action, or structure to achieve a better outcome (greater Dignity, Life, or Justice).	Aims to Sever and Purify: Claims focus on elimination of the target to achieve "Ontological Closure" (restoring a simplistic binary). The goal is not reform, but removal.
2. The Process Test (Corrigibility)	Is Corrigible: The claim is falsifiable, transparent in its reasoning, and open to change if new evidence contradicts its premise. It admits its own potential for error.	Is Anti-Corrigible (Rigid): The philosophy converts all criticism, counter-evidence, or opposition into proof of the enemy's cunning/deceit, thus self-validating the original hatred.
3. The Diagnosis Test (Complexity vs. Simplicity)	Accepts Complexity and Context: Acknowledges the target entity (e.g., Israel, a political movement) is complex—capable of being both powerful and threatened. It critiques actions or policies, not the identity.	Enforces a Totalizing Binary: The claim structurally defines the target as monolithic evil (e.g., 100% Oppressor). It rejects all evidence of complexity because the simplicity of the binary is load-bearing for the philosophy.
4. The Target Test (Dignity and Proportionality)	Critiques Actions/Policies: The language is proportional and focused on behaviors. It never denies the target's inherent dignity/humanity.	Attacks Identity/Existence: The language is disproportionate, dehumanizing, and justifies or advocates for relational severance (destruction, elimination). It engages in premise smuggling to deny the target's basic human dignity.