Well, I think that this thread demonstrates that we are all capable of having a collective think on these thorny issues, and if nothing else, that the situation is not at all black and white. It is difficult, complex and inherently contestable.
What this leads to or ought to lead to probably should always remain an open question.
I did not wish or intend to bring undue criticism upon the moderating team - they are doing a very difficult job for free. But I do think they have a responsibility to continually reflect and examine some of the issues raised here. In some cases, I think the opposite tendency has been expressed - a sense that the moral question is completely settled, and anyone who opposes it are themselves a moral problem.
I think it is worth examining that.
There has been explicit statements of the kind that people such as myself who object to and speak up about antisemitic content only do so on the basis of self-righteousness, in order to gain some kind of personal benefit (I wonder what on earth this might be!), have the intention only of shutting down discourses they don't like and are, in the final analysis "morally repugnant" for those reasons.
To say nothing of the bizarre claim that it is more morally repugnant to object to antisemitic content than to post it, what is most troubling about this kind of reasoning is that it denies the very thing it is fighting to preserve: namely, free speech.
Let me explain.
At the root of this particular debate is an epistemological issue: who is making true and valid claims and how do we decide (that truth and validity)?
Well, if someone posts content about Jews or Judaism which they think is fair, well founded and true, and someone else thinks it is unfair, unjust and false, then we have a dispute about the validity or truth of those claims, don't we?
If the person - in this case me - can only make the assertion "that is unfair, unjust and false" on the basis of "self-righteousness, gaining personal benefit and trying to shut down a discourse I don't like" it ascribes purely subjective (and unwholesome) motivations to my assertion, and flatly denies any
epistemic validity to my position.
At the same time, it raises the epistemic validity of the other position to the level of truth or fact.
The implication is that there can never be an epistemologically coherent case of actual
antisemitism - in every case, the agent who asserts it is psychologised, or thought to be proposing something entirely within the sphere of their self-interested motivations.
This is especially a problem when a moderator deploys this kind of (il)logic, because they are invested with the power to decide (truth and validity).
So that has bothered me a little.
But generally I think it has been a fruitful conversation, and I hope a balance may be struck which keeps everyone happy.