Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:09 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
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.
Well, it was a bunch of Democrats I've spoken to personally, plus at least one Democratic US Congressperson. But please, by all means, revel in your victory, as I will grovel to your rhetorical superiority. Kudos!
  #252  
Old 03-16-2019, 07:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Well, it was a bunch of Democrats I've spoken to personally, plus at least one Democratic US Congressperson. But please, by all means, revel in your victory, as I will grovel to your rhetorical superiority. Kudos!
You may assume the non-groveling position.



...You know, it's entirely possible that Omar will quit with the insults and become the new Lion of the House (if the Senate gets a Lion, why shouldn't the House?) I will cheer if she does so.
  #253  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:34 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
But when making a point, it's always good to have evidence available to back up that point.
Sadly, evidence is not required on the SDMB. It's opinions, all the way down.
  #254  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Sadly, evidence is not required on the SDMB. It's opinions, all the way down.
Cite? Or is this just your opinion?

EDIT:

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-16-2019 at 08:42 PM.
  #255  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:00 PM
D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Cite? Or is this just your opinion?
See the threads where the OP quotes an opinion piece, as if it were a fact. They are not uncommon.

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.
  #256  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:03 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
See the threads where the OP quotes an opinion piece, as if it were a fact. They are not uncommon.

And that's all I'm going to say on the subject.
Interesting cite-free opinions you offer on a criticism about how "evidence is not required" on this board and it's "opinions all the way down". Fascinating!
  #257  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Interesting cite-free opinions you offer on a criticism about how "evidence is not required" on this board and it's "opinions all the way down". Fascinating!
I teach my third graders how opinion pieces ought to contain opinions that are buttressed by facts.

Sadly, D'anconia isn't one of my third graders.
  #258  
Old 03-17-2019, 11:06 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
K9, you didn’t understand my post.
Then you failed to make yourself understood. You made a claim as to where she was coming from. I questioned you on that claim.

If you didn't mean to make that claim, then please clarify what you are talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
I'm not seeing how anyone would get "couldn't get anything right" or "did everything wrong" from your example.
Motivated reasoning. If someone wants to take exception to what someone has said, then they will find something offensive to take exception to.
Quote:
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:

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:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/27/mich...rump-here.html

Another way of looking at this:

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/124236...d-by-linguists
And then there is what Trump says directly, as well as his actions, to also inform what he implies. It actually requires quite a bit of interpretation of Trump's messaging to find a way that it is *not* offensive.
Quote:
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.
I think if anything, Trump has primed people to look for "the deeper meaning" in the words of others, even if they have none.

It is not defenders "explaining" or "translating", I don't really have a great defense for her. I don't know her, she's not my rep, and most of the policies that I have seen her advocate for I do not think are practical *as written*, but I see the criticisms of her, and I find them to be quite the stretch. I do not stick up for her because I agree with her, I stick up for her because I see someone being, IMHO, unfairly attacked. And attacked in a way that mostly leads to internecine warfare within the party, to the benefit of only the republican party. There is no explanation or translation needed, I have only looked at the actual things that she has said, asked where she has said the things she is accused of saying, and finding the examples to be lacking.

Now, her attackers are certainly "explaining" and "translating". I have seen many "paraphrases" of her words that do not contain anything that she has actually said. I have seen uncharitable interpretations of what I consider to be common innocuous phrases. I have seen charges leveled at her for her criticisms of a group that had anyone else criticized any other group in the same way, no one would have blinked.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]
Yeah, all one other Muslim woman.
Quote:
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)?
You are right. Have they said anything at all that is in any way critical of the country or its direction?

Is it just that they know that they need to stay quiet, to not draw any attention to themselves, for fear receiving the same treatment as their colleague?

Looking into Carson's twitter feed, I see that he recently posted:
Quote:
Great article about a welcome trend. Not only should Congress look more like our nation as a whole, but so should the folks who help my colleagues and I serve our constituents. Let’s keep it up!
One of the first replies:
Quote:
ARE YOU SPEAKING AS A MUSLIM?

DID YOU SWEAR ON A QUR'AN TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?

DOES THE QUR'AN PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION (I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS ONE ALREADY)?

PROTECT THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
Rashida Tlaib had this to say:
Quote:
‏The anniversary of the uprising against the oppression in Syria was yesterday. We must recognize the struggle of those who organized and stood up against injustice. It is my hope that we can see a Syria that is truly free one day.
To which one of the first replies is:
Quote:
It would be nice to see a USA that remains free and healthy !! If you want to represent the interests of Syria, apply for a position in their totalitarian republic !!
Quote:
If we're not seeing that, could it be that discussion of Omar has something to do with Omar's own conduct?
Yeah, she criticizes the govt and its actions, which makes it easier for the trolls to "translate" or "explain" to you why what she said should offend you.

She's just the current lightning rod. Once she is cowed into silence, then the trolls will find some implication in another minority that they don't like, and take offense to what is "implied".

I'll agree that she should be more careful with her messaging. She has said some things that were tone deaf as to the implications that could be assumed to her words, making her an easy target. But, the only way for her to stop receiving any of this criticism of her character is to no longer criticize the US govt or its actions.
  #259  
Old 03-17-2019, 12:29 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post

I'll agree that she should be more careful with her messaging. She has said some things that were tone deaf as to the implications that could be assumed to her words, making her an easy target. But, the only way for her to stop receiving any of this criticism of her character is to no longer criticize the US govt or its actions.
Actually, it's "shut up and disappear completely". Anything less won't get these trolls to shut up, and even then they'll just move on to the next target.

The sheer amount if bad-faith bullshit flung at Omar would be stunning if I hadn't been following politics during the Obama years. What is stunning is how much of it is coming from within the democratic party. It's kind of insane, really, when you look at party discipline - Republicans can stop anyone in their party from breaking rank on account of people like Steve King or Donald Trump; the freshman congresswoman has a few pointed comments on zionist lobbying groups or the ways Obama was less than perfect, and immediately the dems get their knives out. It's kind of incredible, honestly. I really can't wrap my head around it.

I mean, it could just be racism and islamophobia. That explanation makes a fair bit of sense.
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
  #260  
Old 03-17-2019, 12:41 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Actually, it's "shut up and disappear completely". Anything less won't get these trolls to shut up, and even then they'll just move on to the next target. ... What is stunning is how much of it is coming from within the democratic party. It's kind of insane, really, when you look at party discipline - Republicans can stop anyone in their party from breaking rank on account of people like Steve King or Donald Trump ....
It's true. The GOP side can tolerate all kinds of hate speech and sexual predation. The Dem side does not. What up with that?

There are trolls no question. And it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling or as wanting her to disappear or as attempts to censor all discussion of subjects of disagreement.

Trolls and hate on the GOP side does not excuse anything and does not constitute any argument against criticism from those who want to be on your team.
  #261  
Old 03-17-2019, 12:49 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It's true. The GOP side can tolerate all kinds of hate speech and sexual predation. The Dem side does not. What up with that?

There are trolls no question. And it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling or as wanting her to disappear or as attempts to censor all discussion of subjects of disagreement.

Trolls and hate on the GOP side does not excuse anything and does not constitute any argument against criticism from those who want to be on your team.
Except... The criticism was bullshit. All of it. She got slagged off for "antisemitic tropes" while accurately describing what a lobbying group does with regards to AIPAC. (Go ahead - try it. Criticize a zionist lobbying group in a way that can't be called "antisemitic" by bad-faith jerks!) She offered entirely valid criticism of Obama. Beyond that... What is there?

Why yes, it would be wrong to tolerate a racist troll in the democratic party. But this isn't a racist troll - it's a progressive firebrand beloved by the young. You know, that group you really need to inspire to vote in 2020? Yeah, primarying her seems like a genius idea! Instead of, say, the dude who crossed the aisle to confirm Kavanaugh.
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
  #262  
Old 03-17-2019, 02:49 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Obviously I do not agree that I am a bad faith jerk.

And I’ve spent enough posts here explaining how easy it is avoid the hateful tropes. And how even easier it is to let them slip out.
__________________
Oy.
  #263  
Old 03-17-2019, 03:22 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Obviously I do not agree that I am a bad faith jerk.
Who called you one? Or is it something that was "implied"? Were you looking for an insult and managed to convince yourself of one?
Quote:
And I’ve spent enough posts here explaining how easy it is avoid the hateful tropes.
You've spent posts making that claim.
Quote:
And how even easier it is to let them slip out.
Well, yeah, if nearly anything can be seen as a hateful trope with enough motivational lighting, then all it takes is opening one's mouth.
  #264  
Old 03-17-2019, 04:14 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Quote:
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.
... Have they said anything at all that is in any way critical of the country or its direction?

Is it just that they know that they need to stay quiet, to not draw any attention to themselves, for fear receiving the same treatment as their colleague?

Looking into Carson's twitter feed, I see that he recently posted:

Quote:
Great article about a welcome trend. Not only should Congress look more like our nation as a whole, but so should the folks who help my colleagues and I serve our constituents. Let’s keep it up!
One of the first replies:

Quote:
ARE YOU SPEAKING AS A MUSLIM?

DID YOU SWEAR ON A QUR'AN TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION?

DOES THE QUR'AN PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION (I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS ONE ALREADY)?

PROTECT THE 1ST AMENDMENT.
...
You're quoting trolls on Twitter as proof of....what, exactly? That anti-Muslim hatred exists?

Who, posting in this thread, appears not to know that anti-Muslim hatred exists?

Or if it's not that you believe you have to make the case that anti-Muslim hatred exists, is it that you believe that because anti-Muslim hatred exists, no one may voice any criticism whatsoever of a Muslim person?

If that's your claim, could you expand on it? I don't believe you've successfully made that case.
  #265  
Old 03-17-2019, 04:18 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... And it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling or as wanting her to disappear or as attempts to censor all discussion of subjects of disagreement. ...
Yes.

Unfortunately, this basic truth is being rejected. And minds appear to be made up.

Still, that basic truth deserves to be repeated.
  #266  
Old 03-17-2019, 04:32 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
You're quoting trolls on Twitter as proof of....what, exactly? That anti-Muslim hatred exists?
No, that people will find a way to twist any words into something that offends them.
Quote:
Who, posting in this thread, appears not to know that anti-Muslim hatred exists?
Why do you ask? I did not say that anyone was ignorant of the hatred of Muslims that is rather prevalent. I don't think anyone is, anyway. Is there anyone that you are thinking of?
Quote:
Or if it's not that you believe you have to make the case that anti-Muslim hatred exists, is it that you believe that because anti-Muslim hatred exists, no one may voice any criticism whatsoever of a Muslim person?
No.
Quote:
If that's your claim, could you expand on it? I don't believe you've successfully made that case.
No, that's not my claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Yes.

Unfortunately, this basic truth is being rejected. And minds appear to be made up.

Still, that basic truth deserves to be repeated.
I'll agree with DSeid on that as well. He said "it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling".

Who, posting in this thread, has said that "it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling"?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 03-17-2019 at 04:34 PM.
  #267  
Old 03-17-2019, 05:12 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Who called you one? Or is it something that was "implied"? Were you looking for an insult and managed to convince yourself of one?

You've spent posts making that claim.


Well, yeah, if nearly anything can be seen as a hateful trope with enough motivational lighting, then all it takes is opening one's mouth.
Hmmm.

If you read anything other in BPC's post other than a dismissal of the criticism such as what I have given as coming from bad-faith jerks then I think you are doing some remarkable twisting.

Words and concepts referenced by posters in this thread, much more than by Omar, are pretty much at Hymietown and kike level in the way they are experienced by many Jews. I do not believe that we as a group are being excessively sensitive. We are not twisting words. They are particular words and concepts with DIRECT links to the worst vilest anti-Semitic shit out there with centuries of history and many dead.

I cannot stop you from supporting their use, stop you from thinking our offense is somehow the result of twisting words looking for offense, and force you to discuss the subjects (whether we agree or disagree about them) in ways that are not so offensive, which again, is easily done by anyone.

Your mind is made up that there is no need for you to have any caution in the speech you use and you are dug in in your self-denial about where those specific words and concepts come from.

Regarding Omar ... again, I think she deserves to have some slack cut, even with that second part retreat from the appropriate apology. The positions of some of her "defenders" OTOH are much worse.

The evidence I see in this thread is that the Left here is much closer to Britain's Left's overt anti-Semitism than I ever would have suspected or previously believed.
  #268  
Old 03-17-2019, 05:32 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Hmmm.

If you read anything other in BPC's post other than a dismissal of the criticism such as what I have given as coming from bad-faith jerks then I think you are doing some remarkable twisting.
Okay, so you're probably not a bad-faith jerk.

But how, exactly, do we criticize the influence of AIPAC and its financing in Washington without running afoul of antisemitic tropes? (And assume, for a moment, that the people deciding whether or not it's "antisemitic" have a vested interest in AIPAC's good reputation.)

Hell, just looking at the above sentence, it'd be remarkably easy to twist that into "anti-semitic tropes" about jews pulling the strings behind the scenes. Because if we define those tropes broadly enough, then there is no possible non-antisemitic claim to do with the influence groups like AIPAC have, regardless of how valid. Because, at the end of the day, AIPAC is the group deciding whether to call something antisemitic.

Quote:
Words and concepts referenced by posters in this thread, much more than by Omar, are pretty much at Hymietown and kike level in the way they are experienced by many Jews. I do not believe that we as a group are being excessively sensitive. We are not twisting words. They are particular words and concepts with DIRECT links to the worst vilest anti-Semitic shit out there with centuries of history and many dead.
"It's all about the benjamins"? Fuckin' really?

Why yes, there are antisemitic slurs about jews pulling the strings and holding outsized influence in positions of power. But... guess what. AIPAC absolutely holds outsized influence in positions of power. And it's not unreasonable or antisemitic to call that out.

Quote:
The evidence I see in this thread is that the Left here is much closer to Britain's Left's overt anti-Semitism than I ever would have suspected or previously believed.
You mean that bullshit that gets pulled out to defuse every attempt to pull labor closer to the left?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And it is wrong to dismiss all criticism and requests for less insulting and insensitive wording as trolling or as wanting her to disappear or as attempts to censor all discussion of subjects of disagreement.
All right, let's limit ourselves to the criticisms thrown at her by her colleagues in her own caucus in congress.

They have advocated she be removed from her committee positions.
They have advocated a resolution to censor her.
They have stated they intend to primary her in 2020.

I'm sorry, but to the degree that there's a line of criticism that just wants her to be "more sensitive", it basically does not matter. It's not relevant, because all of the relevant criticism from those with real power boils down to "Shut up or we will make you shut up; disappear or we will make you disappear". There have been calls to "Call in" by folks like AOC, people saying, "Hang on, let's maybe not throw on the lynch mob for this woman", but from the mainstream? It's bad.

And for what? One or two insensitive tweets that pale in comparison to the shit brought out on a daily basis by <insert any member of the republican caucus here>? An on-point (if harsh) criticism of a former democratic president?

Is there a huge side to this I'm missing or something? Did she start talking about the blood libel while I was at that party last night?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-17-2019 at 05:33 PM.
  #269  
Old 03-17-2019, 06:19 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
The huge side of this you are missing here in my posts anyway is that I am less upset with her behavior than the the words and concepts used by posters here.

I've already linked to an article discussing some how to easily criticize AIPAC without using the tropes. (One that was positive about Omar and spent much time calling out GOP hypocrisy btw.) I'll just quote again from there. Bolded is how it is easily said. And you do know that ASIPAC lobbies (often wrongheadedly I think) but does NOT make campaign contributions, don't you? They promote ideas but they are not buying anyone.

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. ...

... There are two problems here: First, the tweet isn’t true. The US-Israel alliance has deeper and more fundamental roots than just cash, including the legacy of Cold War geopolitics, evangelical theology, and shared strategic interests in counterterrorism. Lobbying certainly plays a role, but to say that “US political leaders” defending Israel is “all” about money is to radically misstate how America’s Israel politics work (and discount the findings of the scholars who study it).

Second, and more important, totalizing statements like this play into the most troubling anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous early-20th-century Russian forgery, describes a plot by Jewish moneyed interests to subvert and destroy Christian societies through their finances. This in turn draws on longstanding European anti-Semitic traditions that portray Jews as greedy and conniving.

After World War II and the creation of the state of Israel, the conspiracy theory shifted. Anti-Semites started using “Zionist” or “Zio” as a stand-in for “Jewish,” using Jewish activism in favor of the Jewish state as proof that they were right all along about the Jewish conspiracy. David Duke, the former Louisiana state representative and Ku Klux Klan grand wizard, released a YouTube video in 2014 that bills itself as an “illustrated” update of the Protocols. The video features footage of leading Democratic and Republican politicians speaking to pro-Israel groups, with the caption “both are in the grips of Zio money, Zio media, and Zio bankers.”

“Do you really think, in politics, that he who pays the piper doesn’t call the tune?” Duke asks rhetorically.

Omar is, of course, not coming from the same hateful place as Duke is. But by using too-similar language, she unintentionally provides mainstream cover for these conspiracy theories ...

... Pro-Palestinian activists, writers, and politicians have every right to point out what they see as the pernicious influence of groups like AIPAC. The group is undeniably powerful, and it’s worth mentioning in our conversations about both Israel policy and money in politics. You can and should be able to say, “AIPAC’s lobbying pushes America’s Israel policy in a hawkish pro-Israel direction,” without saying that it is literally only about dollars from (disproportionately) Jewish donors.
There is no need and no rational cause to go to the "dual loyalty" or "allegiance to a foreign power" lines from the old hates. There is no reason to Dukishly falsely and simplistically imply that Jewish money is controlling American policy.

You'd find many American Jews agreeing that AIPAC is a highly effective and powerful lobbying group that promotes some bad policies. Saying that is not at all offensive.

Don't use the word "cunning" in a conversation about Jews. Don't accuse Jews of disloyalty or of having their "allegiance" elsewhere. Don't use any language that sounds like it is implying a "Zionist" control of anything.

Those concepts have been part of the popular culture from before Shakespeare's Shylock so it is unavoidable that they may be ones that come to the tongue. Edit yourself. It is not hard to do.
  #270  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:02 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
There is no need and no rational cause to go to the "dual loyalty" or "allegiance to a foreign power" lines from the old hates.
Courtesy of The Nation, here is her exact words:
I know what intolerance looks like and I’m sensitive when someone says, “the words you use Ilhan, are resemblance of intolerance.” And I am cautious of that and I feel pained by that. But it’s almost as if every single time we say something, regardless of what it is we say, that it’s supposed to be about foreign policy or engagement, our advocacy about ending oppression, or the freeing of every human life and wanting dignity, we get to be labeled in something, and that ends the discussion, because we end up defending that, and nobody ever gets to have the broader debate of “what is happening with Palestine?” So for me, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. I want to ask, why is it OK for me to talk about the influence of the NRA, of fossil-fuel industries, or Big Pharma, and not talk about a powerful lobby that is influencing policy.…

I mean, most of us are new, but many members of Congress have been there forever. Some of them have been there before we were born. So I know many of them, many of them, were fighting for people to be free, for people to live in dignity in South Africa. I know many of them fight for people around the world to have dignity, to have self-determination. So I know, I know that they care about these things. But now that you have two Muslims who are saying, “here is a group of people that we want to make sure they have the dignity that you want everyone else to have!”…we get to be called names, we get to be labeled as hateful.
Notice what she's not doing. She's not saying "Jews have a dual allegiance". She's not saying "certain jews have a dual allegiance". She's saying "AIPAC is pushing for dual allegiance". AIPAC, which is trying its best to expand its outreach beyond jews, it may be worth noting. And, last I checked, that's hardly controversial - they demand that from anyone they support. Marco Rubio pushed a bill that would refuse government funding to people who support BDS; this is apparently already the norm in some states. Senators and Congresspeople repeatedly swear to uphold our special relationship with Israel. It's hardly controversial that AIPAC's goal is for people to align themselves with Israel's policy - it's pretty blatant about it. It's hardly unreasonable to call them out for doing so.

And to claim that this is somehow some antisemitic dog whistle that's beyond the pale... No, I'm sorry, I don't see it. And I guarantee most people who aren't explicitly told about it won't see it. And it sucks as a dog whistle, because it's coming from the mouth of someone most American antisemites have zero interest in supporting - a black Muslim woman. Tell me that David Duke said that as a dog whistle? Okay, I buy it. Tell me that Ilhan Omar did as a dog whistle? Naw. Fuck no. And this is supposed to be grounds to kick her out of congress?

And hey, look, we still haven't had that conversation on Palestine, because for some reason, the person who wants to have it keeps getting smeared as "antisemitic". Huh, I wonder if that's happened before? I wonder if that's happened every single time this discussion comes up, regardless of who tries to bring it up? It's a pattern of bad-faith criticism, which is easy to do because "antisemitic tropes" is a very broad list that includes such things as "having influence" or "having money".

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 03-18-2019 at 03:05 AM.
  #271  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:02 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 49,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
And you do know that ASIPAC lobbies (often wrongheadedly I think) but does NOT make campaign contributions, don't you?
AIPAC functions as a broker for campaign contributions, as has already been pointed out here. If that matters, I don't see it.

Quote:
There is no need and no rational cause to go to the "dual loyalty" or "allegiance to a foreign power" lines from the old hates. There is no reason to Dukishly falsely and simplistically imply that Jewish money is controlling American policy.
But, to whatever extent it's demonstrably true, why should it be out of bounds to say so?

Quote:
Don't accuse Jews of disloyalty or of having their "allegiance" elsewhere.
But many, including some posters here, are doing just that to a prominent Muslim. Maybe the same standards should apply?
Quote:
Those concepts have been part of the popular culture from before Shakespeare's Shylock so it is unavoidable that they may be ones that come to the tongue. Edit yourself. It is not hard to do.
Or you can confront it instead of hiding from it. More ignorance might be fought that way.

Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of Likud's AIPAC-promoted policies (not "Israel's"; they're not the same thing) is the apparent basis that "It's finally our turn to do it to somebody else".
  #272  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Meanwhile, here's sitting Congressman Steve King encouraging civil war less than a week after a white supremacist killed 50 people in a mosque.



I think this forms an important contrast to the Ilhan Omar issue. Republicans can basically say whatever the fuck they want, and as long as the party as a whole isn't dragged through the mud by it, the consequences are non-existent. Even if they break the law - Matt Gaetz was about as blatant as he could possibly be about his witness tampering. Meanwhile, a democratic congresswoman says a few bad things about israel that one could uncharitably interpret as referring to antisemitic tropes, and it's immediately time to throw them out of the party.

We hold ourselves to a standard that is fundamentally unreasonable out of context and practically suicidal in context.

Y'know who really likes Ilhan Omar? Young people. Y'know what throwing her out of the party does for you in that demographic? It gives them another stark, brutal reminder that the democratic party really is made up of the kind of dinosaurs who think we have to wait another decade before doing anything about climate change, and who are unable or unwilling to go to bat for us. It gives the demographic least likely to vote and most crucial to democratic victory in 2020 another reason to become more cynical and stay home. Sounds like a great idea!



Imagine if the democratic caucus went after republican congressmen who committed actual fucking crimes as hard as they went after one of their own rank that pissed off AIPAC.
  #273  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:50 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I think this forms an important contrast to the Ilhan Omar issue. Republicans can basically say whatever the fuck they want, and as long as the party as a whole isn't dragged through the mud by it, the consequences are non-existent. Even if they break the law - Matt Gaetz was about as blatant as he could possibly be about his witness tampering. Meanwhile, a democratic congresswoman says a few bad things about israel that one could uncharitably interpret as referring to antisemitic tropes, and it's immediately time to throw them out of the party.

We hold ourselves to a standard that is fundamentally unreasonable out of context and practically suicidal in context.
I think you're onto something - maybe Dems need their own billionaire racist sexual assaulter to run for President, since it worked for the Republicans. Then the far left can just hector other Dems into shutting up about this candidate's failings, because REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!!!
  #274  
Old 03-18-2019, 08:59 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think you're onto something - maybe Dems need their own billionaire racist sexual assaulter to run for President, since it worked for the Republicans. Then the far left can just hector other Dems into shutting up about this candidate's failings, because REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!!!
This bears no resemblance to what I said in or out of context.
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
  #275  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:19 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
Meanwhile, here's sitting Congressman Steve King encouraging civil war less than a week after a white supremacist killed 50 people in a mosque.



I think this forms an important contrast to the Ilhan Omar issue. Republicans can basically say whatever the fuck they want, and as long as the party as a whole isn't dragged through the mud by it, the consequences are non-existent. Even if they break the law - Matt Gaetz was about as blatant as he could possibly be about his witness tampering. Meanwhile, a democratic congresswoman says a few bad things about israel that one could uncharitably interpret as referring to antisemitic tropes, and it's immediately time to throw them out of the party.

We hold ourselves to a standard that is fundamentally unreasonable out of context and practically suicidal in context.

Y'know who really likes Ilhan Omar? Young people. Y'know what throwing her out of the party does for you in that demographic? It gives them another stark, brutal reminder that the democratic party really is made up of the kind of dinosaurs who think we have to wait another decade before doing anything about climate change, and who are unable or unwilling to go to bat for us. It gives the demographic least likely to vote and most crucial to democratic victory in 2020 another reason to become more cynical and stay home. Sounds like a great idea!



Imagine if the democratic caucus went after republican congressmen who committed actual fucking crimes as hard as they went after one of their own rank that pissed off AIPAC.
Always nice to point out that Iowa, the state Fucknugget represents, is firmly in the blue column.

He's since deleted the post because he was getting absolutely castrated by his constituents.
  #276  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I think you're onto something - maybe Dems need their own billionaire racist sexual assaulter to run for President, since it worked for the Republicans. Then the far left can just hector other Dems into shutting up about this candidate's failings, because REPUBLICANS DO IT TOO!!!

This. And the same goes for all the left wingers saying "look how successful the Tea Party was: that's our template for what we should do within the Democratic Party."
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-18-2019 at 05:40 PM.
  #277  
Old 03-18-2019, 06:03 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... Senators and Congresspeople repeatedly swear to uphold our special relationship with Israel. ....

It's hardly unreasonable to call them out for doing so. ....

And hey, look, we still haven't had that conversation on Palestine, because for some reason, the person who wants to have it keeps getting smeared as "antisemitic". .....
Cite?


Do we call them out for taking support for any of the other orgs that donate many times what AIPAC does? AIPAC is relatively small potatoes, Big Tobacco donates much more and Big Health/Pharma is tops, which is why we dont have UHC here.

Has she ever condemned the terrorism from Palestine?
  #278  
Old 03-18-2019, 06:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
My golly, you're right. Nobody has ever accused a politician of being in the pocket of big Oil or Tobacco.
  #279  
Old 03-18-2019, 06:42 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
This bears no resemblance to what I said in or out of context.
If what a politician says or does should not affect our support for our party's leader, so long as they deliver what we want, why shouldn't Dems line up behind a pervert? R's did, and their joker is in the White House for still another year and nine months.
  #280  
Old 03-18-2019, 06:56 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Don't accuse Jews of disloyalty or of having their "allegiance" elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
But many, including some posters here, are doing just that to a prominent Muslim. Maybe the same standards should apply? ...
I haven't noticed posts accusing Omar of disloyalty, or of having her allegiance elsewhere.

Or did you mean someone else by "prominent Muslim"...?
  #281  
Old 03-20-2019, 01:50 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,392
If a Democrat had 5 children by three different women and cheated on each of those wives, one with a porn star, that person would be considered un-electable.

Yet this is the Republican President.

I'm kinda done listening to Republicans preach morals and tell me who is allowed to hold office as a Democrat.
  #282  
Old 03-20-2019, 03:33 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If what a politician says or does should not affect our support for our party's leader, so long as they deliver what we want, why shouldn't Dems line up behind a pervert? R's did, and their joker is in the White House for still another year and nine months.
I'm saying that if we make our purity tests this strenuous, we'll suffer in the long term, and that it's particularly appalling given what people across the aisle are letting go. Think of it in the dynamic of "You Go High, We Go Low".
__________________
"I think if Mrs May actually went and said that there will be a no deal Brexit, there will be a hard border in Ireland, troops are already on the way, we will be dynamiting and flooding the Chunnel this evening and the Royal Navy is patrolling the channel that would be 110 times better than what is happening now." -AK84
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 08:06 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