Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 03-12-2019, 08:26 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
... I find it disconcerting that it still seems to be the Jewish stuff that is the main focus of controversy, when this is newer and IMO more damning. ...
To my mind that's because the Obama criticism, while apparently worded for maximum headline-making, is at least defensible as a political position. 'Obama authorized drone strikes and I feel that was reprehensible and therefore will call him a murderer and if you don't like that, too bad' is a position that is, perhaps, unfair to Obama---but it does NOT make any generalizations about (say) black people.

Omar's other headline-grabbers were generalizations about an entire group. Ugly ones, as it happens.

For me, that's why Omar's Obama comments are less egregious than her "it's all about the Benjamins, baby" tweet and "allegiance to a foreign country" comment:

Quote:
... we never really allow space for the stories of Palestinians seeking safety and sanctuary to be uplifted. ... And, so, so for me, I know that when I hear, my, my Jewish constituents, or friends, or colleagues speak about Palestinians who don’t want safety or Palestinians who aren’t deserving, I stay focused on what that process should look like.

...So, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country. ...
https://medium.com/@wideofthepost/il...t-42c10df2da76

And then there's this, with which I agree:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
... It’s an apology failure. It’s an “I’m sorry that you were offended but what I said was not offensive.” She is stating very clearly that she feels the problem was not what she said, it was absolutely not a badly worded tweets or even unwittingly anti Semitic, and she is sorry that some people felt it was. The problem is their offense; I was not offensive.

I know better than to apologize to my wife by saying that I’m sorry she feels that way. Any spouse knows that is no apology, it is clinging to a belief of I’ve no fault here.
Omar seems to feel that in the current climate, she can make ugly generalizations about a group, and that group will just suck it up, and others will shrug.

Not admirable.

But maybe that's the end of her bomb-throwing. Hope so.
  #152  
Old 03-12-2019, 08:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
It's a pretty sweet deal for AIPAC. How many lobby groups are shielded from accusations of using money or cunning to influence Congress? Their whole purpose is to generate pro-Israel legislation but don't you dare accuse them of dual loyalty.
  #153  
Old 03-12-2019, 08:56 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
I can understand American Jews being offended by the "allegiance to a foreign country" bit if there were no truth to it. But when you have high-placed people saying that criticizing Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, and many other signs that they really do seem to prize Israel above all the others, isn't it at least an arguable claim? Seems to me there's a bunch of people who want to place Israel on a kind of pedestal, but don't like to be called on it.

ETA: I only saw CarnalK's post after I wrote mine.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-12-2019 at 08:58 PM.
  #154  
Old 03-12-2019, 09:12 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
...when you have high-placed people saying that criticizing Israel is inherently anti-Semitic...
Well, that's clearly just wrong.

Of course it's perfectly legitimate to criticize actions and/or policies of the government of Israel.

Who has done this, by the way? Said that 'criticizing Israel is inherently anti-Semitic'...?
  #155  
Old 03-12-2019, 09:27 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's a pretty sweet deal for AIPAC. How many lobby groups are shielded from accusations of using money or cunning to influence Congress? Their whole purpose is to generate pro-Israel legislation but don't you dare accuse them of dual loyalty.

Most of them are, n fact most people dont know who the big lobbys even are:


https://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...s-spending-big
The five biggest spenders in lobbying last year, in descending order, were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Realtors, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association and the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America.

Rounding out the top 10 were the American Medical Association, Boeing, the National Association of Broadcasters, AT&T and Business Roundtable.


Note that neither AIPAC nor the NRA (usually less than a million)are in the top 50, but Big Tobacco is, Altria Group, with Philip Morris International coming in at $6,230,000, just off the bottom.

The NRA comes in around #500. AIPAC spends around $3M, putting it down around #100 or so? So Big Tobacco spends 6 or 7 times what AIPAC does, and Big Tobacco kills 500,000 Americans a year.

Big Health is the #1 spender and Big Tobacco #2, if you consolidate. That's why we dont have UHC, of course.

Clearly showing that Omar doesn't know shit about lobbyists or is prevaricating. AIPAC is not that big of a spender.

Last edited by DrDeth; 03-12-2019 at 09:28 PM.
  #156  
Old 03-12-2019, 09:49 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
I would differentiate obviously political lobbying groups like the NRA and AIPAC from the likes of Blue Cross Blue Shield (my insurer) or Boeing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Well, that's clearly just wrong.

Of course it's perfectly legitimate to criticize actions and/or policies of the government of Israel.

Who has done this, by the way? Said that 'criticizing Israel is inherently anti-Semitic'...?

I'm having trouble finding a quote. But I know I've heard it before, including recently. Here's an article on the topic:

https://www.mepc.org/anti-zionism-an...-critics-speak
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #157  
Old 03-12-2019, 09:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I would differentiate obviously political lobbying groups like the NRA and AIPAC from the likes of Blue Cross Blue Shield (my insurer) or Boeing.



]
You dont think they are political? Blue shield? Why doesnt America have UHC?= Blue Shield. Who wants us to buy more bombers and use them? (and sell them to other nations so they can start wars)= Boeing.
  #158  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:03 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
So let's begin with establishing that the discussion here is arguing that she had nothing to apologize for. Credit where credit is due. People here are not trying to claim that that statement is an actual expression of her acknowledging that she, even without conscious intent, used anti-Semitic tropes.The discussion instead morphs into that she had nothing to apologize for, thereby justifying the not an apology made..

Moving along.

I'm no fan of AIPAC but the point of the above is that AIPAC is not a hugely powerful lobbying group in terms of the money it throws around, which on the scale of the big lobbying groups is not so huge. AIPAC may, to my mind, be very wrongheaded in some of the policies they support, but they are no puppet masters pulling the strings of elected officials.

Moving further, yes SlackerInc you have definitely heard people claim that any criticism of Israel is squelched as anti-Semitic but in fact there is lots of criticism of Israel made that is not so labelled. Most of it in fact.

And it is also true that there are a large number of anti-Semites out there. In the ranks of those who believe that in a region dominated by states with entrenched Islamic characters it is the concept of having one small state with a Jewish character that is an affront to humanity lie a disproportionate number of them. They tend to be the ones who use the classic anti-Semitic tropes and they are not the people who are merely critical of specific Israeli policies. They are against Israel's very existence as a concept and traffic in the canards of Jewish control. Being against Israel existentially and a belief in "ZOG" all too frequently overlap.

One would have to be very naive to think that those people do not exist. And one has to have a very short historical memory to not appreciate what sort of harm anti-Semitism can cause.

Moving further, the simple fact is that Israel does exist and will continue to do so. Simple facts also include that while the Democratic tent should be big enough to include those who believe that Israel has no right to exist trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes is not something there should be space for. One can likely find a fairly sizable if not broad support, including among many American Zionists, that unqualified support of any and all Israeli policies is a mistake and that justice demands a better shake for Palestinians (even as one may disagree on how one got to this place). Hard to have that conversation when it starts with what is at best disrespect.

Lastly - Israel should not be a major plank or subject in this election cycle. And if ones biggest concern is improving conditions for Palestinians and reducing what is felt by some to be blanket approval of anything an Israeli administration does, then getting Trump out of office is what one must focus on. Obama, as a fairly centrist D, was much more concerned with reining in Israeli administration behaviors thanTrump is, and the most moderate candidate running on the D side would be as well.
  #159  
Old 03-13-2019, 12:46 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
I'm no fan of AIPAC but the point of the above is that AIPAC is not a hugely powerful lobbying group in terms of the money it throws around, which on the scale of the big lobbying groups is not so huge. AIPAC may, to my mind, be very wrongheaded in some of the policies they support, but they are no puppet masters pulling the strings of elected officials.
I bet they're one of the biggest lobby groups that deals exclusively with foreign policy.

And the fact remains that they do spend money and charisma trying to influence policy. When people talk about blaming the private prison lobby for incarceration rates, has it ever occurred to you to rebut with "they aren't in the top 50 lobby groups"?
  #160  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:53 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
... When people talk about blaming the private prison lobby for incarceration rates, has it ever occurred to you to rebut with "they aren't in the top 50 lobby groups"?
Y'know I actually very rarely hear too much about the private prison lobby but when I do it is in context of how much they spend in direct campaign contributions and allegations of actual quid pro quo kickback schemes.

Payoffs to judges to for increases in prison sentencing is a bit of a different beast than lobbying.

What is your bet as to how much AIPAC spends directly contributing to campaigns and working on behalf of specific candidates? Spoiler - it's zero. On payments for specific votes? Also zero.

Yes, AIPAC spends money trying to win lawmakers and others to their POVs on issues that they feel are important. A fraction of what Dow Chemical, or Lockheed, or Boeing, or Alphabet, or Amazon, or Facebook, or Altria, or even CocaCola spend trying to win people over to their POVs but yes they are effective lobbyists and do likely have some impact. Organizing into groups to press for particular policy positions is part of the American political process. Sometimes politicians get convinced by lobbyists' pitches and sometimes not. But while groups making their cases with lobbyists has its definite problems it is not controlling how officials vote with money; it is not pulling puppets' strings.

Thing is you don't hear about Dow controlling American government policy as they spend that many dollars in their free speech expression trying to make the case for positions of interest to them or hear that "dual loyalty" phrase applied to them ... phrases that resonate with old anti-Semitic tropes get used where they hit on the old stereotypes. Oh those "cunning" and "disloyal" Lockheed executives trying to influence policy ... huh don't hear those words. And the people who use them are likely unaware of the implicit beliefs they hold that get them using those specific phrases and concepts.

But yeah it's okay because the people who use them are sorry you are offended.


Disagree with what AIPAC advocates for and argue against it - I do. But be a bit careful that the way you disagree does not traffic in hateful concepts, and let's try to avoid fracturing ourselves at this point in history.

Last edited by DSeid; 03-13-2019 at 05:56 AM.
  #161  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:23 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Thing is you don't hear about Dow controlling American government policy as they spend that many dollars in their free speech expression trying to make the case for positions of interest to them or hear that "dual loyalty" phrase applied to them
Because DowDuPont isn't a foreign power.

Perhaps it's more telling that we don't hear this phrase applied toward money from South Korea, Japan, UAE, which all send more our way than Israel, or Ireland, which sends just a bit less.
  #162  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:54 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
But is a rural predominantly Hispanic district really more accurately represented by a hard Progressive? Are those planks more in touch with their thoughts than a religious conservative who is against Trump on most immigration votes? (Current representation.)

Maybe but I wouldn’t assume so just because they’ve voted heavy D in the past.

Even with lots of organizational support and outside money it may a heavy lift.

What sort of breaks with progressive planks would you be willing to tolerate if you were donating?
The only requirement to be a Justice Democrat is that they don't take corporate PAC money. There's no requirement to be a "hard Progressive", whatever that means.

For instance, TYT gave a lot of exposure to Richard Ojeda, who is pro-gun and pro-life. Bernie Sanders is (or was) more pro-gun than many of the other Justice Democrats.

AFAIK, there's no set platform that comes with being a Justice Democrat.

btw, I found the groupings in that 538 article to be created in an artificial way. The only difference in policies between AOC and Bernie Sanders is that AOC is more vocal about abolishing ICE. Bernie Sanders is more measured in how he frames it. Yet, that's the sole reason for a whole different category. It seemed to be constructed to try to point out more differences than necessary. There may be more categories or less, but the ones they chose seemed artificial to me, based on that one difference in the top category.
  #163  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:07 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Because DowDuPont isn't a foreign power.

Perhaps it's more telling that we don't hear this phrase applied toward money from South Korea, Japan, UAE, which all send more our way than Israel, or Ireland, which sends just a bit less.
Analogies are hard to make accurate here. There's not a Boycott, Divest, Sanctions campaign against any other nation on earth. And that means that there's no state that requires people to pledge not to join a BDS campaign against any other nation.

But BDS against Israel is a real thing. And it's also a real thing that in order to get certain government jobs in the US, you must sign a pledge that you won't participate, even privately, in a BDS campaign against Israel.

It's a unique situation. Certainly it's legitimate to argue that BDS is unethical; but it's also legitimate to argue that government-mandated pledges against BDS are also unethical.

The question is whether it's fair to regard anti-BDS pledges as requiring a pledge of loyalty to another nation, or whether that's antisemitic. I tend to see it as non-antisemitic, since it's not suggesting that Jews have divided loyalty, but suggesting that the US federal or state government (using laws put in place primarily by evangelical Christians) is requiring its citizens of all or no religious backgrounds to have a divided loyalty.

That's far enough removed from the trope that I think it's not part of the stereotype at all.
  #164  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:30 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
I'm guilty of not following the conversation thread back very far and didn't realize I was responding to a comment about BDS.

ISTM the legislation in question is unconstitutional.
  #165  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:41 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
AFAIK, there's no set platform that comes with being a Justice Democrat.
Other than what's on the Justice Democrats' platform page?
https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues/
  #166  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:45 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Because DowDuPont isn't a foreign power.
Neither are American Jews. AIPAC is not a foreign power. It is a group of Americans who share thoughts about what American policy should be. I don’t agree with many of their beliefs but they are not a foreign power or disloyal or of divided loyalty or “cunning”.
__________________
Oy.
  #167  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:46 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I'm guilty of not following the conversation thread back very far and didn't realize I was responding to a comment about BDS. ...
You weren’t.
__________________
Oy.
  #168  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:54 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
ISTM, if we are talking about defense contracts it's alright to bring up Boeing's lobby money and when discussing America's policies on Israel it should be ok to bring up AIPAC money.
  #169  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:08 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Neither are American Jews. AIPAC is not a foreign power.
Advocating on behalf of, then. Again, though, there are probably other organizations that do this. And people reacting to one and not the others would be a red flag.
  #170  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:09 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You weren’t.
Then I have no idea what LHoD was going on about.
  #171  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:14 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
DSeid might be off:
The controversy over Ilhan Omar and AIPAC money, explained
Quote:
After years of tolerating Iowa Rep. Steve King’s increasingly overt racism, McCarthy took action against him early this year by stripping him of his committee assignments. Then on Sunday, Ron Kampeas of the JTA news service reported that McCarthy was preparing to challenge Democrats to take similar action against Omar and Tlaib, arguing, according to Kampeas, that “statements by freshmen Democrats Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota were equal to King’s and ‘more so.’”

It wasn’t clear from Kampeas’s report which statements he had in mind, but in the larger context of the GOP push for laws that would punish people for boycotting Israel, it seems like he was trying to say that Omar and Tlaib supporting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement was worthy of punishment.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-13-2019 at 08:16 AM.
  #172  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:26 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
The only requirement to be a Justice Democrat is that they don't take corporate PAC money. ....
Whether or not that is true it wasn’t the question. Is that the only requirement YOU have?

Would you support someone who is for the wall, for deporting Dreamers, against choice, for the NRA, a Climate Change Denier, and who thinks BLM and trans rights are both crock, so long as they don’t take corporate PAC?
__________________
Oy.
  #173  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:40 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No idea if what it seems like a GOP critter has in mind to someone else is a correct or incorrect guess. But it most certainly is not what concerns many other Democrats like me about her statement followed by the clarification that she still does not think trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes was a mistake, that she’s just sorry that others took offense.

No this is not about BDS.

It is about the total lack of self awareness of those who traffic in phrases like “cunning” and “dual loyalty” and insinuations of Jewish control.

Omar’s comment could have been simple ignorance and she initially reacted as if she got that and learned. Doubling down after though? And going out of her way to dis Obama as the same as Trump but with a pretty face?

Again who needs Russian trolls when we have this to do the fracturing for them?
__________________
Oy.
  #174  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:49 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Other than what's on the Justice Democrats' platform page?
https://www.justicedemocrats.com/issues/
I don't think that list is definitive, although I can't know for sure. Unless Ro Khanna has changed his position since July 2018, and I doubt he has, he's not for the abolition of ICE, which is on that platform. I doubt the Justice Democrats will be throwing him out over that.

Then again, they threw out 1 of their 4 co-founders (and another resigned) in 2017, so hard to tell what they'll do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Whether or not that is true it wasn’t the question. Is that the only requirement YOU have?

Would you support someone who is for the wall, for deporting Dreamers, against choice, for the NRA, a Climate Change Denier, and who thinks BLM and trans rights are both crock, so long as they don’t take corporate PAC?
What do my views have to do with this topic? I thought the question was about primarying Dems with other Dems who have views closer to their constituents. As someone mentioned, running Dems that don't match their constituents to the point where it would be highly unlikely they would get elected would be a waste of resources.
  #175  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:20 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
No idea if what it seems like a GOP critter has in mind to someone else is a correct or incorrect guess. But it most certainly is not what concerns many other Democrats like me about her statement followed by the clarification that she still does not think trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes was a mistake, that she’s just sorry that others took offense.

No this is not about BDS.

It is about the total lack of self awareness of those who traffic in phrases like “cunning” and “dual loyalty” and insinuations of Jewish control.
A big piece of the problem is that people are talking about Omar sometimes but not about Omar sometimes, about BDS sometimes and not about BDS sometimes. And when people talk about Omar, they're sometimes paraphrasing her in a way that makes her sound way worse than what she actually said, and sometimes they're taking individual words out of context.

The last sentence I quoted above is a great example. Who are those who traffic in phrases like "cunning" and "dual loyalty"? Are you talking about Omar here? If so, what are the quotes where she uses those phrases? If you just mean phrases "like" those but not "exactly" those, what exactly did she say that you're paraphrasing thusly?

Because I've Googled "Ilhan Omar cunning," and I'm not finding an example of her using that word. I've Googled "Ilhan Omar dual loyalty," and I'm not finding examples of her using that phrase.

I find it pretty disingenuous, in a discussion of Ilhan Omar's attitude toward Jews, to put words like that in quotes while referring to nonspecific people who "traffic in phrases." Let's use her actual words in paragraph-length context, or let's talk about those other people in another thread.
  #176  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:27 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
I'm guilty of not following the conversation thread back very far and didn't realize I was responding to a comment about BDS.
You weren’t.
For fuck's sake. What specific quote of Omar's are we talking about? Almost certainly this one, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Omar
I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.
What do you think she's talking about if not BDS?

As the article I'm citing above goes on to explain,
Quote:
Omar, however, was not actually hauling out the old dual loyalty trope. Rather, the Minnesota representative was questioning a situation in which American politicians, the overwhelming majority of whom are not Jewish, have for years with near-unanimity fought to quash all public criticism of an actual foreign country. No fewer than 26 states have passed legislation punishing businesses and individuals who, to protest Israeli policies toward Palestinians, support the movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. Some require anyone who wishes to do business with the state to sign an oath declaring that they do not boycott Israel. Others create official blacklists of BDS supporters. The U.S. Senate’s first legislative priority in January, after a five-week government shutdown, was to pass a bill authored by Marco Rubio that gave a federal blessing to state and local anti-boycott laws.
If you don't think that's the context in which she spoke, what do you think she was talking about, and what's your evidence?

Again, if we're criticizing Omar, let's ground ourselves in what she actually said, not in what think-pieces about her uncharitably paraphrase her as saying.
  #177  
Old 03-13-2019, 09:40 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Analogies are hard to make accurate here. There's not a Boycott, Divest, Sanctions campaign against any other nation on earth.
There are no other groups that encourage that companies and consumers avoid doing business with certain countries due to the actions of that country?

What about official state imposed sanctions? I imagine that the US imposing sanctions on Iran does much more to their economy than a group advocating that people stop buying Israeli goods and services does to their's.
  #178  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:27 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
I think one reason people suspect AIPAC must be fairly powerful is that until recently, there was a longstanding bipartisan pro-Israel consensus in American politics, unlike what you see on almost any other issue. This despite the fact that they really are kind of apartheid-lite, and (as Nate Silver noted in the latest 538 podcast) Florida is the only state where the Jewish population can really have the potential to swing elections.

Another interesting piece of data Silver provided: Democrats are split almost perfectly in quarters on the topic of Israel and Palestine. One-fourth are more sympathetic to Israel; one-fourth more sympathetic to Palestine; one-fourth to both equally, and one-fourth aren't sure. That's a prescription for intraparty conflict. (By contrast, 80 percent of Republicans are more pro-Israel.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I find it pretty disingenuous, in a discussion of Ilhan Omar's attitude toward Jews, to put words like that in quotes while referring to nonspecific people who "traffic in phrases." Let's use her actual words in paragraph-length context, or let's talk about those other people in another thread.

Cosigned.

It's definitely a weird feeling, to watch this whole imbroglio play out, with nearly everyone focused on the comments regarding Israel and AIPAC. On that issue, as I've said all along, I am in her corner. Meanwhile, though, I continue to be incensed over her Obama comments--but few others seem to care about those.

Do I stop defending her on the former because I want her gone? That is tempting, but I just can't resist saying what I really think.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-13-2019 at 10:29 AM.
  #179  
Old 03-13-2019, 10:58 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
...
The last sentence I quoted above is a great example. Who are those who traffic in phrases like "cunning" and "dual loyalty"? ...
Posters in this thread.
__________________
Oy.
  #180  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:03 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
For fuck's sake. What specific quote of Omar's are we talking about? Almost certainly this one, right?


What do you think she's talking about if not BDS?

As the article I'm citing above goes on to explain,

If you don't think that's the context in which she spoke, what do you think she was talking about, and what's your evidence?

Again, if we're criticizing Omar, let's ground ourselves in what she actually said, not in what think-pieces about her uncharitably paraphrase her as saying.
Speaking of disingenuous.

The attention was not at all attached to that part of the statement but to the implication that the reason is the Benjamins baby and the trope it trafficked in.
__________________
Oy.
  #181  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:10 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
The issue has nothing to do with having sympathy for one side or the other or both. (Sign me for the last.)

It has to do with the use of anti-Semitic tropes. It has to do with the difference between criticizing behaviors and using those as a means of expressing hate speech. And hate speech expressed without conscious awareness but due to implicit acceptance of the tropes.
__________________
Oy.
  #182  
Old 03-13-2019, 11:52 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
My impression is that those "tropes" are wielded far too broadly, as a shield against criticism.

Something I've long wondered: would people who are sensitive to these things consider it anti-Semitic if I honestly stated "Judaism is stupid and backward"? Would the answer change if they knew that I feel the same about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #183  
Old 03-13-2019, 01:59 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Speaking of disingenuous.

The attention was not at all attached to that part of the statement but to the implication that the reason is the Benjamins baby and the trope it trafficked in.
You were talking about "dual loyalties," in a thread on Omar. Don't fucking call me disingenuous.
  #184  
Old 03-13-2019, 02:08 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
You really should bother to read the conversations you are participating in.

Your failure to do so is not my concern.
  #185  
Old 03-13-2019, 02:10 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
My impression is that those "tropes" are wielded far too broadly, as a shield against criticism.

Something I've long wondered: would people who are sensitive to these things consider it anti-Semitic if I honestly stated "Judaism is stupid and backward"? Would the answer change if they knew that I feel the same about Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.?
I can only speak for myself. No I would not consider an ignorant statement about the religion to be anti-Semitic, even if was specific to the one belief system.
__________________
Oy.
  #186  
Old 03-13-2019, 02:17 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You really should bother to read the conversations you are participating in.

Your failure to do so is not my concern.
At the end of the day, you object to money being mentioned in reference to lobbying because it's an Israeli lobby group. An objection I can't imagine you'd offer on any other political lobby.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-13-2019 at 02:19 PM.
  #187  
Old 03-13-2019, 03:42 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
You really should bother to read the conversations you are participating in.

Your failure to do so is not my concern.
...and with that we're done.
  #188  
Old 03-13-2019, 03:54 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Speaking of disingenuous.

The attention was not at all attached to that part of the statement but to the implication that the reason is the Benjamins baby and the trope it trafficked in.
The original(remix) Puff Daddy & The Family - It's All About The Benjamins and the trope it ran in on.

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-13-2019 at 03:55 PM.
  #189  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:37 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
For fuck's sake. What specific quote of Omar's are we talking about? Almost certainly this one, right?

Quote:
So, I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is okay for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.
What do you think she's talking about if not BDS?

As the article I'm citing above goes on to explain,

Quote:
Omar, however, was not actually hauling out the old dual loyalty trope.
Neither your claim that Omar must have been talking about Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, nor the article author's claim that Omar "was not actually hauling out the old dual loyalty trope" make sense in the light of Omar's word choice.

She talked about people "in this country" pushing for "allegiance to a foreign country."

She did not talk about people in this country pushing for support for a foreign country. She talked about people in this country pushing for allegiance to a foreign country.

Of course that's "dual loyalty"---at best. Logically, Omar's phrase must mean either loyalty to that foreign country plus one's own (dual loyalty), or loyalty ONLY to the foreign country, and no loyalty to one's own. There are no other logical possibilities.

That's nothing to do with pledges to boycott or with pledges not to boycott. That's allegiance to a foreign country. I don't see how you can dance around it.


The problem with what Omar has been saying is not that it contains criticism of Israel or of Israel's policies, or even criticism of those Americans who care about Israel and its policies (one way or the other).

The problem with what Omar has been saying--and refusing to genuinely apologize for---is that it characterizes an entire group of people in an insulting way. Omar asserts that these particular participants in government are "all about the Benjamins, baby," and fail to be patriotic Americans.

As has been mentioned, these are old slurs.

Are we really supposed to defend the use of slurs against certain demographic groups? Really? What are, we, Republicans?
  #190  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:41 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Neither your claim that Omar must have been talking about Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, nor the article author's claim that Omar "was not actually hauling out the old dual loyalty trope" make sense in the light of Omar's word choice.

She talked about people "in this country" pushing for "allegiance to a foreign country."

She did not talk about people in this country pushing for support for a foreign country. She talked about people in this country pushing for allegiance to a foreign country.
What, specifically, do you think she was talking about, then? Because there have absolutely been anti-BDS laws, but I'm unaware of anything else that remotely qualifies.
Quote:
The problem with what Omar has been saying--and refusing to genuinely apologize for---is that it characterizes an entire group of people in an insulting way. Omar asserts that these particular participants in government are "all about the Benjamins, baby," and fail to be patriotic Americans.
What group of people? Jews? Because that doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
As has been mentioned, these are old slurs.

Are we really supposed to defend the use of slurs against certain demographic groups? Really? What are, we, Republicans?
If you can convince me that she's talking specifically about Jews, I'll change my tune. But I'm not at all convinced that's the group she's talking about here.
  #191  
Old 03-13-2019, 05:54 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
At the end of the day, you object to money being mentioned in reference to lobbying because it's an Israeli lobby group. An objection I can't imagine you'd offer on any other political lobby.
Simply no.

Very seriously, do you honestly think the phrases “dual loyalty” and the word “cunning” came to the minds of posters here total devoid of any even subconscious association of them with the very standard anti-Semitic bits of cunning and disloyal Jews controlling things with money, etc.?

You do understand that these negative stereotypes and beliefs routinely impact all of our speech and actions even when we are not consciously aware of them, don’t you?

I experience those as “fighting words” as do many other American Jews.

Criticism of Israeli actions and policy, the paired idiocy of BDS and requiring rejection of it are not offensive.

But if one wants to have that conversation one should be aware that you may hold more hateful stereotypes than you think and be aware that such can result in the use of words that in real life can result in others considering punching you in the face. Well thinking about it before taking the deep breath counting slowly and walking away. Not worth it at this point in my life.

Otherwise yeah done here is fine.
  #192  
Old 03-13-2019, 06:11 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Neither your claim that Omar must have been talking about Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, nor the article author's claim that Omar "was not actually hauling out the old dual loyalty trope" make sense in the light of Omar's word choice.

She talked about people "in this country" pushing for "allegiance to a foreign country."

She did not talk about people in this country pushing for support for a foreign country. She talked about people in this country pushing for allegiance to a foreign country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
What, specifically, do you think she was talking about, then? Because there have absolutely been anti-BDS laws, but I'm unaware of anything else that remotely qualifies.
She was talking about

Quote:
my Jewish constituents, or friends, or colleagues
https://medium.com/@wideofthepost/il...t-42c10df2da76

The specific context was discussion of stories of "Palestinians seeking safety and sanctuary" and Omar's assertion that Jewish people she's heard speaking about Palestinians, do not speak about a search for safety and sanctuary, but speak instead about the Palestinians not wanting safety or not being deserving.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Of course that's "dual loyalty"---at best. Logically, Omar's phrase must mean either loyalty to that foreign country plus one's own (dual loyalty), or loyalty ONLY to the foreign country, and no loyalty to one's own. There are no other logical possibilities.

That's nothing to do with pledges to boycott or with pledges not to boycott. That's allegiance to a foreign country. I don't see how you can dance around it.
I notice that you chose not to respond to this. Why is that?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
The problem with what Omar has been saying is not that it contains criticism of Israel or of Israel's policies, or even criticism of those Americans who care about Israel and its policies (one way or the other).

The problem with what Omar has been saying--and refusing to genuinely apologize for---is that it characterizes an entire group of people in an insulting way. Omar asserts that these particular participants in government are "all about the Benjamins, baby," and fail to be patriotic Americans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
What group of people? Jews? Because that doesn't make any sense.
What doesn't make sense? That Omar was talking about Jews? She was; it's right in the transcript.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
As has been mentioned, these are old slurs.
Are we really supposed to defend the use of slurs against certain demographic groups? Really? What are we, Republicans?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If you can convince me that she's talking specifically about Jews, I'll change my tune. But I'm not at all convinced that's the group she's talking about here.
Read the transcript. There's no ambiguity.
  #193  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:02 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Read the transcript. There's no ambiguity.
Thank you for linking the transcript. I'd looked for it but had missed links to it before.

Although I disagree that there's no ambiguity, I find her first couple of paragraphs more unsettling than anything else I'd read by her before. I gotta think about that.
  #194  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:18 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
...

The problem with what Omar has been saying--and refusing to genuinely apologize for---is that it characterizes an entire group of people in an insulting way. Omar asserts that these particular participants in government are "all about the Benjamins, baby," and fail to be patriotic Americans.
...
And that's was made me angry. I figured she got excited, misspoke, and so made a genuine heartfelt apology. So I said, sure, people screw up, they apologize, let's drop it. But then she made it clear she didnt mean that apology at all.
  #195  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:31 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And that's was made me angry. I figured she got excited, misspoke, and so made a genuine heartfelt apology. So I said, sure, people screw up, they apologize, let's drop it. But then she made it clear she didnt mean that apology at all.
Whereas it's seemed clear to me all along that she was apologizing for using words that made people pissed off, even though she didn't mean to. Her explanation of her apology--that she was apologizing for how she made people feel--is entirely in keeping with a genuine apology for inadvertently using language that pissed people off.
  #196  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Whereas it's seemed clear to me all along that she was apologizing for using words that made people pissed off, even though she didn't mean to. Her explanation of her apology--that she was apologizing for how she made people feel--is entirely in keeping with a genuine apology for inadvertently using language that pissed people off.
No, sorry*, "I am sorry about how you feel" is a bogus non-apology. She is laying the blame on those who felt hurt. That makes it even worse.


*not real apology
  #197  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:55 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Isn’t the mission of AIPAC literally about allegiance to Israel? Like right in the name?

I find myself softening to Omar, because I see nothing wrong with any of the Medium quotes. Except maybe the “endless war” bit, which reminds me of her rant against Obama and other mainstream Democrats, and then I get pissed off again.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-13-2019 at 07:57 PM.
  #198  
Old 03-13-2019, 07:58 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Isn’t the mission of AIPAC literally about allegiance to Israel? Like right in the name?
Not at all:
https://www.aipac.org/about/mission

The mission of AIPAC is to strengthen, protect and promote the U.S.-Israel relationship in ways that enhance the security of the United States and Israel.

They are a strong ally, who has really good local intel. They have helped the US too, altho no doubt they get the lion's share.

There are similar groups for Korea, GB, Taiwan, etc.
  #199  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Which would also involve dual allegiance.

I feel like the “tropes police” would object if someone called Bernie Madoff a greedy, dishonest banker.
  #200  
Old 03-13-2019, 08:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
"Allegiance to" is not the same as "support of." Nowhere near.

Similarly, "support, protect, and promote" a relationship with a foreign nation is not the same thing as giving allegiance to a foreign nation. Again: nowhere near.
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 04:18 AM.

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