Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:15 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Isn’t the mission of AIPAC literally about allegiance to Israel? Like right in the name? ...
Do you think that the "A" is for "Allegiance" perhaps?

Or do you not know what the word means?

Yeah that confused emoticon is right on - you are. At best.

No, there is nothing in the name "American Israel Public Affairs Committee" that implies a subservient obedience to Israel. No question that its mission is to advocate for positions that its members support regarding Israel, positions that they honestly feel are in both the United States and Israels' best interests, which many of the rest of us believe is excessively permissive support that is actually not in either Israel's or the United States best long term interests. To my mind they are wrong. But they are taking orders from no one.


As to the apology ... it plays like this: "So I'm sorry that people were hurt that I wore Black face but absolutely not was my wearing Black face racist, either wittingly or unwittingly."

Yup very genuine.
  #202  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:20 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Can't recall if this has been mentioned in one of the Omar threads, but: the accusation she makes against those Jewish Americans she mentions in her speech, is reminiscent of the accusations made against JFK when he was running for the Presidency. It was said that his allegiance was to the Pope----not to the USA.

It wasn't said that JFK was a supporter of the Pope, or that he hoped for a good relationship between the Vatican and the USA----it was said that he had, at best, dual loyalty. His loyalty, the accusation went, was not to his own nation, but to a foreign entity (the Papacy).

So that sort of thing hasn't been used only against Jewish people. But it does get used a lot against Jewish people. It's an old standby, so to speak.
  #203  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:40 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
No question that its mission is to advocate for positions that its members support regarding Israel, positions that they honestly feel are in both the United States and Israels' best interests, which many of the rest of us believe is excessively permissive support that is actually not in either Israel's or the United States best long term interests.

And I think that "excessively permissive support" is precisely because they don't honestly feel the positions are in both the United States and Israel's best interests. They feel the positions are in Israel's best interest, and that's what mainly matters to them. (To clarify, I'm not saying they would take a pro-Israel position that they see as being super harmful to the U.S., only that they are cool with it being a suboptimal policy for the U.S. overall, as long as it is good for Israel.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #204  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:49 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 8,275
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Can't recall if this has been mentioned in one of the Omar threads, but: the accusation she makes against those Jewish Americans she mentions in her speech, is reminiscent of the accusations made against JFK when he was running for the Presidency. It was said that his allegiance was to the Pope----not to the USA.

It wasn't said that JFK was a supporter of the Pope, or that he hoped for a good relationship between the Vatican and the USA----it was said that he had, at best, dual loyalty. His loyalty, the accusation went, was not to his own nation, but to a foreign entity (the Papacy).

So that sort of thing hasn't been used only against Jewish people. But it does get used a lot against Jewish people. It's an old standby, so to speak.
The difference is that Catholics don't have a homeland to defend; Zionists, OTOH, are defending a "home" state with a military that violently oppresses people and influences American foreign policy. The same cannot be said of Roman Catholicism. So the analogy isn't entirely valid.
  #205  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:16 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... they don't honestly feel the positions are in both the United States and Israel's best interests. ...
How do you come to this conclusion?

Because I know and have debates with quite a few who would minimally be quite comfortable with AIPAC (more than likely a few donate)... and I do not know a one who does not honestly believe that a secure and strong Israel is in America's best interests.

Do you think that the American politicians who have taken positions that I consider permissive and wrongheaded also do not honestly feel that these positions are in America's best interests and that what matters mainly to them is what is in Israel's best interests? (The question is not if they are right or not but what they honestly believe.)

If you think these American politicians are thinking of Israel's interests as the main thing, over American interests, then why? Are you of the belief that AIPAC lobbyists pay them off with campaign donations or such? AIPAC doesn't do that. Lobbying is simply making the case for why a position is "the right choice." It is selling (the concepts and ideas) not buying (votes and support).

If you instead believe that they have been successfully sold on the idea that a strong and secure Israel is in America's best interests, and honestly believe it, then why is it so hard for to believe that some Jewish Americans also come to that conclusion?

Really these are honestly held beliefs. And even many of us who are very critical of current Israeli administration policies and who would like to see more tough love brought to bear by America believe that a safe secure and strong Israel is in America's best interests. Even the region's and the world's best interests. I just differ with the AIPAC position on how best to achieve that circumstance for the long term. I believe that a peace that gives the Palestinians of the OT a viable homeland with mutual shared interests and assures less discrimination for Israeli Arabs within the country is even better for the interests of all involved and see settlements and the current circumstances as obstacles to that end.

You are free to disagree or even to think I am lying about what I honestly believe, just as I am free to think of you ... as I do.


asahi- Catholicism also has more letters but no "z" or "n" so there's that difference too! And fewer Israeli leaders are accused of covering up sexual abuse of minors! Another difference! Both about as relevant to the point being made as your post.
  #206  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:29 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Really these are honestly held beliefs.

I'm not saying they aren't. What I believe is that many Jewish Americans, especially conservative ones, place the existence of a homeland for the Jews, that is well defended militarily and diplomatically, as their #1 geopolitical goal. A strong alliance with the United States strengthens Israel's defenses, so that is what they want--and they are not too concerned with whether that's actually beneficial for the U.S. Maybe it's mildly harmful to U.S. strategic interests, but it's so helpful to Israel, that is the decisive factor.

If we're honest, I don't think this is--or should be at any rate--all that controversial. Nor is it the worst thing in the world, as it is quite understandable that these people would feel that way, even if I oppose them on the policy because I don't like to see nation-states organized around a reactionary, misogynistic and genocidal Iron Age mythology.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-14-2019 at 12:33 AM.
  #207  
Old 03-14-2019, 12:46 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,377
Arent we getting a little far afield?
  #208  
Old 03-14-2019, 05:52 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 18,604
For those confused and exasperated by all this weird propaganda, Samantha Bee offers a more informed look on Ms. Omar.
  #209  
Old 03-14-2019, 07:22 AM
adaher is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 28,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Can't recall if this has been mentioned in one of the Omar threads, but: the accusation she makes against those Jewish Americans she mentions in her speech, is reminiscent of the accusations made against JFK when he was running for the Presidency. It was said that his allegiance was to the Pope----not to the USA.

It wasn't said that JFK was a supporter of the Pope, or that he hoped for a good relationship between the Vatican and the USA----it was said that he had, at best, dual loyalty. His loyalty, the accusation went, was not to his own nation, but to a foreign entity (the Papacy).

So that sort of thing hasn't been used only against Jewish people. But it does get used a lot against Jewish people. It's an old standby, so to speak.
Yep, and that's why it's a big problem. The excuses made for her by other Democrats compound the problem, as well as make Omar appear to be basically a stupid child who says the darndest things. I'm actually surprised in these woke times that the fact it's all white Democrats diminishing her while defending her that isn't drawing heat.
  #210  
Old 03-14-2019, 08:26 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
For those confused and exasperated by all this weird propaganda, Samantha Bee offers a more informed look on Ms. Omar.
Which breaks down as "News Flash! Republicans hypocritical about anti-Semitism and hate speech!"

A position that is certainly true and already well known. Of course they not only consistently ignore and deny any hate speech from their own, hell they depend on stereotypes and tropes and stoking votes based upon fears and resentments resultant thereof.

Their outrage can and should be simply ignored. And on the D side we can have discussions about difficult subjects that we disagree about.

But we need to have those discussions with an awareness that the GOP (and the Russian trolls that work on their behalf) will try to do their best to divide Ds into warring factions. Their hypocrisy is immaterial to that.

This bit in Vox, (written before she clarified that she was not really sorry for what she said, just that some were offended by it) gives I think an actually more informed look. I'll skip the parts about anti-Semitism on the Right and hypocrisy of GOP criticism of her as a given.
Quote:
... There are two related, yet distinct, kinds of anti-Semitism that have snuck into mainstream politics. One is associated with the left and twists legitimate criticisms of Israel into anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. On the mainstream right, meanwhile, political leaders and media figures blame a cabal of wealthy Jews for mass immigration and left-wing cultural politics in classic anti-Semitic fashion.

Omar’s tweet was a pretty clear example of the first kind of anti-Semitism. Plenty of Jews who are critical of the Israeli government, including me, found her comments offensive. It was false — support for Israel is complex and related to many more factors than just lobbyist money — and it played into centuries of conspiracy theories about Jewish money corrupting Western politics....

... there is a special need on the left — where most pro-Palestinian sentiment resides — to be careful about just how you discuss those things. It’s not just a matter of providing ammunition to the David Dukes of the world; it’s about the moral corruption of the left and pro-Palestinian movement. If references to the baleful influence of Jews on Israel policy become too flip, too easy, things can go really wrong.

To see a real example, one need only to look at Britain. ...
Those who don't already know what is being referenced with that Britain comment can read the article for details. Bottom line is though that anti-Semitism in the British Left has become overt to the degree that
Quote:
Today, about 85 percent of British Jews believe there are “high” levels of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, and that Corbyn himself is anti-Semitic. Forty percent of Jews say they would “seriously consider” leaving the country if Labour wins the next parliamentary election. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, the former chief rabbi of Britain, recently warned that British Jews feel “an existential threat” from Corbyn’s Labour Party.

This is why Omar’s tweet was so troubling, and why the pushback from leadership really was merited. If the line isn’t drawn somewhere, the results for Jews — who still remain a tiny, vulnerable minority — can be devastating.
A white person may think they are just paying homage to a rapper they admire but they should not wear Black face and their apology has to not include any defense about how it was absolutely not racist. And those who want to criticize what they see as the impact of AIPAC and advocate for pressuring Israel on settlements, on movement to real peace solutions, on a host of items, shouldn't wear the rhetoric of overt anti-Semitism (even if it is what comes out due to implicit beliefs that they would deny even to themselves).

The word "cunning", the phrases "dual loyalty" and "divided allegiance", implications of Jewish "control" in a discussion involving Jewish issues, will offend and divide. Use them only if that is goal you want to achieve. And take a private minute to consider how those specific words, concepts, and phrases, ones long associated with the most virulent Jew hating, just happened to be the ones to pop out.

The group labelled as "the super-Progressives" by 538 wants to call out more mainstream Ds on a wide variety of issues, including policies of Obama's years. (How's that pulling this back Dr.Deth?) There will be strong disagreements between them and many others in the party and even some of them with others of them depending on the specific issue. The necessary trick is to disagree with each other in ways that respect each other and not do the trolls work for them.

Last edited by DSeid; 03-14-2019 at 08:29 AM.
  #211  
Old 03-14-2019, 03:05 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
That last paragraph is well stated. As for the rest of it: I can’t stand Corbyn, and worry the “super progressives” here will kneecap Dems’ chances like they have Labour’s; but like Omar, it may be the case that his stance on Israel is not where my bones of contention lie.
  #212  
Old 03-14-2019, 07:37 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
Yep, and that's why it's a big problem. The excuses made for her by other Democrats compound the problem, as well as make Omar appear to be basically a stupid child who says the darndest things. I'm actually surprised in these woke times that the fact it's all white Democrats diminishing her while defending her that isn't drawing heat.
That's a very good point. The defenses of Omar have been painfully off-target, but also, as you point out, rather patronizing.

Omar could have criticized the policies of the current Israeli government without implying that American Jews are unpatriotic, or manipulative. But that wasn't her choice.

Omar could have criticized Obama's authorizing of drone strikes without implying that he is literally a murderer. But that wasn't her choice.

Democrats who wanted to defend her could have said 'there are other ways she could have worded these ideas about Israel's policies and Obama's policies, that would not have carried bigoted and hateful insinuations.' Instead the defenses have basically been 'she didn't mean any of those bigoted and hateful insinuations because she didn't understand what she was saying'---which, as you remark, makes her look like a stupid child.


What should have happened was a clear announcement that it's always legitimate to criticize the policies of Israel's government or Obama's foreign policy---so long as the criticism doesn't depend for its headline-grabbing ability on ugly inferences fueled by unwarranted and underhanded insults.

Last edited by Sherrerd; 03-14-2019 at 07:39 PM.
  #213  
Old 03-14-2019, 09:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
..

The group labelled as "the super-Progressives" by 538 wants to call out more mainstream Ds on a wide variety of issues, including policies of Obama's years. (How's that pulling this back Dr.Deth?) ...
I dont understand the question, sorry.
  #214  
Old 03-14-2019, 10:01 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont understand the question, sorry.
Pulling the thread back from far afield to the subject of the OP.
  #215  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:56 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
I just learned that Omar deleted the tweet I was holding up for derision, so Andy: if you’re still trying to defend the stance that Omar was misquoted or misrepresented, you are really out on a limb now, because even she has given up on that defense. Credit to her for at least realizing she was just digging herself in deeper.
  #216  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I just learned that Omar deleted the tweet I was holding up for derision, so Andy: if you’re still trying to defend the stance that Omar was misquoted or misrepresented, you are really out on a limb now, because even she has given up on that defense. Credit to her for at least realizing she was just digging herself in deeper.
The criticism in your OP was what I was challenging -- it doesn't mean everything Omar has said is perfect with nothing worth criticizing. I just thought most of your criticism was ridiculous. And I still do. It's reasonable to challenge the issues she was challenging. It's even okay to imply that Obama wasn't perfect.

And I took into account your history in how you speak about black people, and black women in particular (and such discussion probably fits better in the Pit thread).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-15-2019 at 09:32 AM.
  #217  
Old 03-15-2019, 09:30 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That last paragraph is well stated. As for the rest of it: I can’t stand Corbyn, and worry the “super progressives” here will kneecap Dems’ chances like they have Labour’s; but like Omar, it may be the case that his stance on Israel is not where my bones of contention lie.
I find this perspective interesting. The article references
Quote:
One Labour official called Hitler “the greatest man in history,” and added that “it’s disgusting how much power the Jews have in the US.” Another Labour candidate for office said “it’s the super rich families of the Zionist lobby that control the world.”
and your response is that you don't mind his "stance on Israel"?

Huh.

Interesting that you don't mind those "stances on Israel."
  #218  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:18 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
Nice “gotcha”, but no: I certainly don’t endorse those quotes. In fact, I emphatically denounce them. But were they said by Corbyn? I don’t get that impression. If you have damning quotes that are actually from him, please share them—because I am tired of hearing from left-wing friends and family about how great he is, and it would be nice to have this kind of ammo in my back pocket.

ETA: When first posting, I did not notice how truly weak that gotcha was. I said I don’t mind Corbyn’s stance on Israel, and you gave me quotes from people who are not Corbyn and which—this is the part I didn’t catch at first glance—are not in fact about Israel. Other than that, you have me dead to rights.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-15-2019 at 10:21 AM.
  #219  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:25 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,600
Boy, ain't it the truth! I have a wide array of leftish friends and acquaintances, and they simply will not shut up about Corbyn! Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn, day in, day out! Probably even worse in Greater Metropolitan Fargo/Moorhead....
  #220  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:42 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
The context is a post about how short the slope is from careless criticism of Israel, mindless (at best) of how they reference the tropes, to ugly overt anti-Semitism, and how that has occurred in Britain today.

The response was meh I don't mind he criticizes Israel.

No gotcha involved. Just finding that response to that post to be ... interesting. Especially when posted by someone who mindlessly goes to the disloyal Jews trope here.

To be clear, I am not calling you an overt anti-Semite. I suspect you are not even consciously aware of how your implicit beliefs inform what you say. But yeah, someone who uses those tropes and reacts to a post that is about how being so mindless emboldens the explicit with "don't mind that" informs.
  #221  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:45 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
Andy, I only knew that Omar tweet even existed because you linked to it as support of your position that she wasn’t talking about Obama. No one here bought that claim, and after a bunch of people on Twitter pointed out that she was being extremely disingenuous, she deleted the tweet in question. But now you’re trying to say that has nothing to do with you and your argument? Again, time to cue the Willy Wonka meme.
  #222  
Old 03-15-2019, 10:56 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
DSeid, nothing mindless about it.

Elucidator, your contemptuous and erroneous implication that there are no left wingers in Fargo-Moorhead is noted. Try looking at the website for the alt-weekly High Plains Reader, amazingly distributed for free in most restaurants and retail stores here, and open your horizons. There is a long-standing tradition here of prairie populism, farmer grain cooperatives, etc.; and F-M is thick with educated Millennials thanks to the several universities, the Microsoft campus, and the burgeoning tech sector more broadly. This is not your (or anyone’s) grandfather’s Fargo.
  #223  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:04 AM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
Missed the edit window.

HPR link: https://hpr1.com

Also, the School Board candidate my wife and I voted for is openly a member of the DSA; she won the election handily.
  #224  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Andy, I only knew that Omar tweet even existed because you linked to it as support of your position that she wasn’t talking about Obama. No one here bought that claim, and after a bunch of people on Twitter pointed out that she was being extremely disingenuous, she deleted the tweet in question. But now you’re trying to say that has nothing to do with you and your argument? Again, time to cue the Willy Wonka meme.
Enjoy taking down your straw men.
  #225  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
DSeid, nothing mindless about it. ...
So much for giving the benefit of the doubt.

Okay. Corrected:

It informs when someone who with intent calls upon a historic anti-Semitic slur does not mind that use of the tropes emboldens overt anti-Semitism.
  #226  
Old 03-15-2019, 01:28 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
  #227  
Old 03-15-2019, 04:33 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
The context is a post about how short the slope is from careless criticism of Israel, mindless (at best) of how they reference the tropes, to ugly overt anti-Semitism, and how that has occurred in Britain today.
I agree with you that it would be horrific if left-wing anti-Semitism became normalized in the US to the extent that it has in the UK. But I also agree with the author of the Vox article you linked that the slope between Omar, who has apologized and met with Jewish leaders to educate herself on the issue, and people who explicitly praise Hitler is really quite long indeed. It was correct for Omar to be called out on it, but refusing to accept her apology at this point only serves the interest of the party which really is mainstreaming anti- Semitism.
  #228  
Old 03-15-2019, 08:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I agree with you that it would be horrific if left-wing anti-Semitism became normalized in the US to the extent that it has in the UK. But I also agree with the author of the Vox article you linked that the slope between Omar, who has apologized and met with Jewish leaders to educate herself on the issue, and people who explicitly praise Hitler is really quite long indeed. It was correct for Omar to be called out on it, but refusing to accept her apology at this point only serves the interest of the party which really is mainstreaming anti- Semitism.
Well there are two separate but overlapping issues.

1) The adequacy of her apologies (inclusive of part 2).

2) The position of several posters here (using phrases like "cunning" and "dual loyalty", phrases that come directly from the longstanding slurs) that she had nothing to apologize for, what tropes?, Jews are these things and just "cry trope" to shut down criticisms.

As to the first, her initial apology was fine and I was satisfied. She is a rookie being given multiple close-ups under very bright lights and a few missteps can be forgiven. It was the part two in which she retreated to a defense that the problem was that people were offended, not with what she said, that bothered me. But that bother is an eye roll level bother. She needs to learn when to stop talking but apologizing with retreating into a self-defense of what your excuse is or trying minimize your offense is hard. Again, been married a long time and still learning! I can easily cut a rookie placed under this much spotlight glare some extra slack so long as it is recognized that such is what is being done.

The second, the position of several posters here that no apology was needed, and their (again at best mindless or driven by implicit stereotypes they hold unawares, but now clarified by one as with intent, not mindless at all) use of the words and concepts with many many centuries of history justifying many atrocities ... that is the part that has disturbed me much more.
  #229  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:13 AM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Well there are two separate but overlapping issues.

1) The adequacy of her apologies (inclusive of part 2).

2) The position of several posters here (using phrases like "cunning" and "dual loyalty", phrases that come directly from the longstanding slurs) that she had nothing to apologize for, what tropes?, Jews are these things and just "cry trope" to shut down criticisms.

As to the first, her initial apology was fine and I was satisfied. She is a rookie being given multiple close-ups under very bright lights and a few missteps can be forgiven. It was the part two in which she retreated to a defense that the problem was that people were offended, not with what she said, that bothered me. But that bother is an eye roll level bother. She needs to learn when to stop talking but apologizing with retreating into a self-defense of what your excuse is or trying minimize your offense is hard. Again, been married a long time and still learning! I can easily cut a rookie placed under this much spotlight glare some extra slack so long as it is recognized that such is what is being done.

The second, the position of several posters here that no apology was needed, and their (again at best mindless or driven by implicit stereotypes they hold unawares, but now clarified by one as with intent, not mindless at all) use of the words and concepts with many many centuries of history justifying many atrocities ... that is the part that has disturbed me much more.
"I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."

That's a fairly common viewpoint of many progressives, especially relating to many of the politicians in Washington and state capitals across the nation - over half of the states have passed laws that punish businesses that boycott Israeli or Israeli-owned companies.

Does it possibly touch on an anti-Semitic topic? Sure. Is it being blown out of proportion by politicians who unquestioningly support Israel while ignoring large amounts of human rights abuses and other wrongdoings? Absolutely.

SlackerInc et al has happily done the Republican's work of portraying any criticism of Israel or its blindfolded supporters in Washington as anti-Semitic, and it's disgusting. Though, not surprising, given his repeated statements of bigotry against Muslims.
  #230  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:46 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,513
Talking about specific Jewish people involved politics, and issues related to Israel right now is dicey precisely because of the very real anti-Semitic scaremongering used against them for centuries. Money in Politics is a super, super hot-button issue right now, especially among Omar's part of the wing (see: AOC's "I'm a really bad guy" ploy), and the intersection of that issue with issues regarding Israel can be legitimately hard to disentagle between intentional anti-semitism, unintentionally playing into anti-semitic sentiment, and an unbiased as reasonably possible application of the "money in politics" critique to the sphere of US-Israeli politics (and/or accusations of corruption against a specific Jewish politician).

Meanwhile, America does have unusually strong ties with Israel, and questioning that is valid and necessary with the whole mess going on with Palestine, but again, it's legitimately hard to disentangle criticism of that with anti-semitism. Personally, I'd place the blame more on the glut of Premillenial Dispensationalist rapture Christians in Congress who are basically a death cult that believe the Temple of David needs to be reconstructed for The Second Coming and Judgment Day to happen before I'd put it on most any Jewish person or PAC. That said, I think it takes a lot of care, self examination, and extremely well thought out wording before you make the critique of any Jewish influencers or politicians just because of the history.

It's unfortunate, but when you have an event under 100 years ago that used near-identical ideas as an excuse to literally exterminate people, followed by a resurgence of people shouting "Jews will not replace us" in a park in Virginia just a couple years ago it maybe pays to take an extra bit of care that Omar certainly did not. It's not really a situation where you can make pithy or glib statements like "all about the Benjamins" because the wording and analysis needs to be very careful and considered.

Last edited by Jragon; 03-16-2019 at 01:49 AM.
  #231  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:21 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
Chisquirrel and Jragon, your comments are appreciated.

I want to emphasize that criticism of American policy to Israel and differences of opinion regarding it are completely fair game and it is actually not all that difficult to express those ideas without glibly using the same language as the standard anti-Semitic tropes.

Let's use the issue of "laws that punish businesses that boycott Israeli or Israeli-owned companies." This has nothing to do with requiring anyone to have "allegiance to a foreign power"; it has everything to do with freedom of expression. My not boycotting Canadian-owned companies does not imply that I have any allegiance to Canada and if I wanted to participate in such a boycott, over some ignorant take on a trade issue say, or even based on some stereotype like they are too nice, I would be allowed to. If someone thought my action was based on stereotyped biases they might argue against my action but no one would be accusing those people of demanding my allegiance to Canada. Allegiance has nothing to do with it.

The use of the word "allegiance" to describe what is a freedom of expression issue is a result of those classic anti-Semitic tapes playing unconsciously and would not be used if not for them. And its needless and completely inaccurate use directly references them even if without conscious intent, thereby normalizing and reinforcing expression of those hateful stereotypes by all sides.
  #232  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:29 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Chisquirrel and Jragon, your comments are appreciated.

I want to emphasize that criticism of American policy to Israel and differences of opinion regarding it are completely fair game and it is actually not all that difficult to express those ideas without glibly using the same language as the standard anti-Semitic tropes.

Let's use the issue of "laws that punish businesses that boycott Israeli or Israeli-owned companies." This has nothing to do with requiring anyone to have "allegiance to a foreign power"; it has everything to do with freedom of expression. My not boycotting Canadian-owned companies does not imply that I have any allegiance to Canada and if I wanted to participate in such a boycott, over some ignorant take on a trade issue say, or even based on some stereotype like they are too nice, I would be allowed to. If someone thought my action was based on stereotyped biases they might argue against my action but no one would be accusing those people of demanding my allegiance to Canada. Allegiance has nothing to do with it.

The use of the word "allegiance" to describe what is a freedom of expression issue is a result of those classic anti-Semitic tapes playing unconsciously and would not be used if not for them. And its needless and completely inaccurate use directly references them even if without conscious intent, thereby normalizing and reinforcing expression of those hateful stereotypes by all sides.
Forcing businesses to trade with Israel isn't the "allegiance". It's the politicians writing and supporting those laws that are being accused of having allegiance to a foreign power.

While Omar is being used in anti-Muslim propaganda by state GOP parties and accused of not being loyal to the Constitution because she wears a hijab, don't expect me to be agree with Gentile Israel supporters getting all heated because someone called them on their shit.
  #233  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 39,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Forcing businesses to trade with Israel isn't the "allegiance". It's the politicians writing and supporting those laws that are being accused of having allegiance to a foreign power.
No one is "Forcing businesses to trade with Israel ".
  #234  
Old 03-16-2019, 01:47 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,517
I am not a Gentile. I am a Jewish American who condemns anti-Muslim propaganda and stereotypes strongly.

Please tell me other times that people who advocate for American policy support of another country are accused of having "dual loyalty" or "allegiance" to that country? Are politicians who advocated for a "Free Tibet" with no specific interest in America's best interests acting with allegiance to the Dali Lama?

Well the other group may be Muslims, accused of having loyalty to the Koran. Pretty awful I would say. Wouldn't you? But it is okay to imply that about Jews?

Why do you think that a word/concept that is associated with such a long hateful history is used in this specific context and can you understand why both why it offends and why the conversation can be more productive if its use was avoided?
  #235  
Old 03-16-2019, 02:42 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No one is "Forcing businesses to trade with Israel ".
What do you call punishing businesses that boycott Israel? No one's forcing you to let your annoying neighbor live, either.
  #236  
Old 03-16-2019, 02:50 PM
Chisquirrel is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
But it is okay to imply that about Jews?

Why do you think that a word/concept that is associated with such a long hateful history is used in this specific context and can you understand why both why it offends and why the conversation can be more productive if its use was avoided?
No one is implying that, other than politicians NOT named Ilhan Omar. We're not talking about policy support, we're talking about blind adherence to unconditional aid to a regime that routinely commits human rights abuses. It's not American Jews or Israeli Jews or Russian Jews or Polish Jews or Indian Jews. It's the actions taken by the government of Israel and the continuing support in the face of those actions by the US and various state governments.

As for her the words she used, that's been asked, answered, and will hereby be ignored.
  #237  
Old 03-16-2019, 03:54 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
SlackerInc et al has happily done the Republican's work of portraying any criticism of Israel or its blindfolded supporters in Washington as anti-Semitic, and it's disgusting.

What the fuck? Cite?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
SlackerInc et al has happily done the Republican's work of portraying any criticism of Israel or its blindfolded supporters in Washington as anti-Semitic, and it's disgusting.

What the fuck? Cite?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Meanwhile, America does have unusually strong ties with Israel, and questioning that is valid and necessary with the whole mess going on with Palestine, but again, it's legitimately hard to disentangle criticism of that with anti-semitism. Personally, I'd place the blame more on the glut of Premillenial Dispensationalist rapture Christians in Congress who are basically a death cult that believe the Temple of David needs to be reconstructed for The Second Coming and Judgment Day to happen before I'd put it on most any Jewish person or PAC.

Sure, but they have an unholy alliance with militant right wing Jews like Sheldon Adelson.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-16-2019 at 03:57 PM.
  #238  
Old 03-16-2019, 04:10 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
...I want to emphasize that criticism of American policy to Israel and differences of opinion regarding it are completely fair game and it is actually not all that difficult to express those ideas without glibly using the same language as the standard anti-Semitic tropes. ...
That's right. Omar, in her public utterances so far, has (regrettably) emulated Donald Trump in seeming to be unable to criticize anyone without personally insulting them, too.

She could have said 'I disagree with Obama's policy on drone strikes, and believe we should examine and highlight the problems with that policy to avoid making the same mistake in the future.' But instead she said

Quote:
We can’t be only upset with Trump. … His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. And that’s not what we should be looking for anymore. We don’t want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...c-party-225696

Which at least implies that Obama is, basically, a reprehensible person---polished and possessed of a pretty face, which lets him get away with literal murder.

This is very Trump-like. It's not just that the opponent has policies with which the speaker disagrees; it's that the opponent is an awful person.

Similarly with Omar's comments about Americans who support Israel, and/or American Jews. She doesn't just say that she questions the policy of supporting the current Israeli government---she says that Americans who do support it are "all about the Benjamins" and have "allegiance to a foreign country."* She can't just say that she disagrees with those people---she has to say that they are money-grubbing, manipulative, and unpatriotic.

And that's personally insulting, of course. Moreover, it's personally insulting by means of old, ugly tropes.

Again: very Trump-like.

She hasn't done anything in several days to make headlines. Maybe she thought better of that sort of conduct. Or maybe Pelosi privately laid down the law: throw any more bombs and you will not get committee assignments you want.



In any case, her past comments worry me as a trend that may be growing: 'counter your opponents not by explaining your policy differences, but by underhanded, nasty personal insults.' We don't need more Trumps. We really, really do not.


*https://medium.com/@wideofthepost/il...t-42c10df2da76
  #239  
Old 03-16-2019, 04:24 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
That's right. Omar, in her public utterances so far, has (regrettably) emulated Donald Trump in seeming to be unable to criticize anyone without personally insulting them, too.

She could have said 'I disagree with Obama's policy on drone strikes, and believe we should examine and highlight the problems with that policy to avoid making the same mistake in the future.' But instead she said

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...c-party-225696

Which at least implies that Obama is, basically, a reprehensible person---polished and possessed of a pretty face, which lets him get away with literal murder.

This is very Trump-like. It's not just that the opponent has policies with which the speaker disagrees; it's that the opponent is an awful person.

Similarly with Omar's comments about Americans who support Israel, and/or American Jews. She doesn't just say that she questions the policy of supporting the current Israeli government---she says that Americans who do support it are "all about the Benjamins" and have "allegiance to a foreign country."* She can't just say that she disagrees with those people---she has to say that they are money-grubbing, manipulative, and unpatriotic.

And that's personally insulting, of course. Moreover, it's personally insulting by means of old, ugly tropes.

Again: very Trump-like.

She hasn't done anything in several days to make headlines. Maybe she thought better of that sort of conduct. Or maybe Pelosi privately laid down the law: throw any more bombs and you will not get committee assignments you want.



In any case, her past comments worry me as a trend that may be growing: 'counter your opponents not by explaining your policy differences, but by underhanded, nasty personal insults.' We don't need more Trumps. We really, really do not.


*https://medium.com/@wideofthepost/il...t-42c10df2da76
Wow does this strike me as hyperbolic nonsense (i.e. probably exactly what the hack-rag Politico intended to be the interpretation). The only time she actually named Obama, AFAICT by carefully reading every one of her quotes, it was to (quite reasonably) criticize some of his drone and immigration policies. I saw nothing close to calling him "reprehensible". She was very careful to qualify her criticism of the system with "many of the people that came before him also had really bad policies...", not "all" or Obama in particular.

I still see this as an attempt at a nuanced criticism of the system overall, and how broken it is, and that Obama wasn't entirely perfect, rather than anything close to a personal attack on Obama.

"Very Trump-like"? Harmful, hyperbolic bullshit. Not even close. Not even in the same fucking galaxy. Nuanced criticism is okay. Dialogue like this is good. If Democrats are going to jump all over someone new who attempts a good-faith effort at some nuanced criticism of the system in general, and saying that even well-meaning Democrats have failed to overcome its weaknesses, then progress will be even harder.

As for her comments on Israel, I think some of them were indeed using anti-semitic tropes (whether intentional or not), and are worthy of criticism (the good, nuanced criticism; not the blanket silly bullshit mostly coming from the right, or some Democrats who have said that it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship and Israeli policies).

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-16-2019 at 04:28 PM.
  #240  
Old 03-16-2019, 04:25 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 16,847
So if some American says that God himself has decreed Israel's existence as his will, what's the preferred term rather thn "dual loyalty"?
  #241  
Old 03-16-2019, 04:54 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Which at least implies that Obama is, basically, a reprehensible person---polished and possessed of a pretty face, which lets him get away with literal murder.
I don't get that. I mean, I can see how it *can* be interpreted that way, but I don't see that as the same as she meant it that way.

If you look for insult, you will manage to find it in the most respectful of comments.

She was not making the most respectful of comments, she was in fact being critical. She was criticizing policies. And when there is criticism, it is even easier to root around and find something that "implies" insult.

If she had said, "'I disagree with Obama's policy on drone strikes, and believe we should examine and highlight the problems with that policy to avoid making the same mistake in the future." then people would be all over her for "implying" that Obama couldn't get anything right and did everything wrong.

If you see something, and think that it "implies" something, then it is always a good idea to step back, and try to tell if they actually *meant* it that way. If them meaning it that way means that they are underhanded and nasty, then maybe take a moment to determine whether or not they actually are, or if it only your interpretation of the implication that you think that their comments could have, or whether they are actually coming from a place of hatred and vileness.

So many people are blaming all the country's ills on the man who currently resides in the white house. Now, to be fair, he is creating some new ills of his own, but he is not responsible for quite a bit of the mess that we have gotten ourselves into.

I don't really agree with her on quite a bit, actually, but it does bother me that she is treated with such contempt and such little latitude. She's a normal person who suddenly got thrown into the spotlight. Now, it was her decision, and she knows that, but it still takes some getting used to that every single word that you utter will be analyzed and cast in the worst possible light.
  #242  
Old 03-16-2019, 05:09 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
To interpret her words about Obama in such an anodyne way is to totally ignore the cultural context she comes from. Not her religious faith or her immigrant background—not at all. It’s the far left, Glenn Greenwald/Democracy Now/truthout cesspool where characterizing Obama as just a smooth talking empty suit whose soothing, hip exterior provides cover for a fascist, imperialist military-industrial complex is the air they breathe. So much so that I think it comes out without conscious recognition of what a scathing condemnation it really is.
  #243  
Old 03-16-2019, 05:14 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
To interpret her words about Obama in such an anodyne way is to totally ignore the cultural context she comes from. Not her religious faith or her immigrant background—not at all. It’s the far left, Glenn Greenwald/Democracy Now/truthout cesspool where characterizing Obama as just a smooth talking empty suit whose soothing, hip exterior provides cover for a fascist, imperialist military-industrial complex is the air they breathe. So much so that I think it comes out without conscious recognition of what a scathing condemnation it really is.
So, your implications on where she is coming from informs your implications on what she means, and your implications on where she is coming from is informed by your implications on what other people mean.

Maybe it is perceived as "scathing condemnation" more than it really is because of your perceptions on where you think taht she is coming from.

Can you actually quote her saying "Obama as just a smooth talking empty suit whose soothing, hip exterior provides cover for a fascist, imperialist military-industrial complex"? If not, then why would you attribute such a stance to her?

You have now said that she comes from a cesspool. How charitably should we take that comment?
  #244  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:03 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Obviously I disagree with you, iiandyiiii. You seem to offer special pleading on behalf of Omar that doesn't stand up, logically:

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
... I saw nothing close to calling him "reprehensible". ...
I still see this as an attempt at a nuanced criticism of the system overall, and how broken it is, and that Obama wasn't entirely perfect, rather than anything close to a personal attack on Obama.
Of course saying someone "isn't entirely perfect" is a personal attack, rather than an attack on policies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
...As for her comments on Israel, I think some of them were indeed using anti-semitic tropes (whether intentional or not), and are worthy of criticism (the good, nuanced criticism; not the blanket silly bullshit mostly coming from the right, or some Democrats who have said that it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship and Israeli policies).
This type of claim (my emphasis) has been made in this thread before, and the maker was challenged to back it up with actual evidence.

Again: please provide evidence for your claim. Name the Democrats, please, and what they said that's equivalent in meaning to "it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship and Israeli policies."
  #245  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:09 PM
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,314
K9, you didn’t understand my post.
  #246  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Of course saying someone "isn't entirely perfect" is a personal attack, rather than an attack on policies.
That's just ridiculous. That could accurately apply to every single human that's ever lived, and it's not a personal attack on humanity.

Quote:
This type of claim (my emphasis) has been made in this thread before, and the maker was challenged to back it up with actual evidence.

Again: please provide evidence for your claim. Name the Democrats, please, and what they said that's equivalent in meaning to "it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship and Israeli policies."
https://twitter.com/RepJuanVargas/st...2F201903150024

From Rep. Juan Vargas: "questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable."

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-16-2019 at 06:19 PM.
  #247  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:42 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... If she had said, "'I disagree with Obama's policy on drone strikes, and believe we should examine and highlight the problems with that policy to avoid making the same mistake in the future." then people would be all over her for "implying" that Obama couldn't get anything right and did everything wrong.
I'm not seeing how anyone would get "couldn't get anything right" or "did everything wrong" from your example.

But of course the larger question is how we derive meaning from what people say. Part of Trump's success has come from the fact that he doesn't say things outright---he implies them. For example:

Quote:
Trump, who was speaking at a rally in Wilmington, N.C., warned that Clinton opposes the Second Amendment and would appoint Supreme Court justices who would block gun rights.. There is currently an opening following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and Republicans have refused to vote on President Obama's nominee.

"If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do folks,” Trump said before adding: "Though the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nton/88479722/

There's "plausible deniability" in saying things without saying them directly. Trump's habit of speaking indirectly---requiring his listeners to infer what he's implying---was recently remarked on by his longtime associate Michael Cohen:

Quote:
Mr. Trump did not directly tell me to lie to Congress. That's not how he operates.

In conversations we had during the campaign, at the same time I was actively negotiating in Russia for him, he would look me in the eye and tell me there's no business in Russia and then go out and lie to the American people by saying the same thing. In his way, he was telling me to lie.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/mich...rump-here.html

Another way of looking at this:

Quote:
He [Trump] makes vague implications with a raised eyebrow or a shrug, allowing his audience to reach their own conclusions. And that conversational style can be effective. It’s more intimate than a scripted speech. People walk away from Trump feeling as though he were casually talking to them, allowing them to finish his thoughts.
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/124236...d-by-linguists

Again, Omar, whether by instinct or by design, appears to have adopted Trump's indirect style---requiring her listeners to infer what she's implying. She chooses not to state her views outright, but instead to insinuate. The benefit, as with Trump, is that defenders will rush in to "explain" or "translate" what she's said. She can throw bombs with impunity.



Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
...I don't really agree with her on quite a bit, actually, but it does bother me that she is treated with such contempt and such little latitude. She's a normal person who suddenly got thrown into the spotlight. Now, it was her decision, and she knows that, but it still takes some getting used to that every single word that you utter will be analyzed and cast in the worst possible light.
Well, the freshman class in this new Congress is, what, ninety-nine strong? And among them, about a quarter are people of color, I believe. And Omar not the only Muslim.

Are all these people receiving equal amounts of negative attention? If not, could their own conduct have something to do with the amount of attention they are, or are not receiving? Or is bias and bigotry the only explanation for why some are being discussed by Democrats? If anti-Muslim hatred is the only reason Democrats are discussing Omar, then shouldn't we expect to see a lot of vitriol from Democrats about Andre Carson (D-Indiana)?

If we're not seeing that, could it be that discussion of Omar has something to do with Omar's own conduct?
  #248  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:46 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
https://twitter.com/RepJuanVargas/st...2F201903150024
From Rep. Juan Vargas: "questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable."
Thank you for providing the one example.

Of course your claim was that "some" Democrats have said "it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship." Do you want to revise your claim to

"One Democrat has said it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship"---?
  #249  
Old 03-16-2019, 06:50 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Thank you for providing the one example.

Of course your claim was that "some" Democrats have said "it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship." Do you want to revise your claim to

"One Democrat has said it's unacceptable to question anything about the US-Israeli relationship"---?
That's the Democrat I was thinking about, and I used "some" in the colloquial way that doesn't necessarily specify a number other than > 0 and < all, since I wasn't sure how many others agreed (though I do personally know many non-Congress Democrats who feel the same way). But because this is so incredibly unimportant to my main point, I'll happily concede this to you -- you are the victor, sir, and I congratulate you on this for a well-nitpicked victory!

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-16-2019 at 06:51 PM.
  #250  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:06 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,209
Argumentation tactics are interesting. Claiming "some" obviously carries more weight than claiming "one guy from San Diego." Not that there's anything wrong with San Diego.

But when making a point, it's always good to have evidence available to back up that point.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017