Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Perhaps you can explain further what you think she meant, since you have objected to my interpretation as being so off-base.
I think she believes that the current policy towards Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other consistent human rights violators should change and involve some level of consequences for these violations. As do I. I'm not sure what exact level of consequences she'd support, but I expect she'd be open to discussion on these sorts of details.

Quote:
Read post 292.
Then it sounds to me like you don't really disagree with what she's advocating for, unless it's within this very narrow, specific interpretation that I see no reason to be more likely than my more charitable and open-minded one.
  #302  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think she believes that the current policy towards Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and many other consistent human rights violators should change and involve some level of consequences for these violations.
Are you fucking kidding me? That's what I've been saying that she was saying, and you just spent several posts telling me how wrong I am. Is this some kind of joke?
  #303  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:19 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Are you fucking kidding me? That's what I've been saying that she was saying, and you just spent several posts telling me how wrong I am. Is this some kind of joke?
I don't get it. In post 292 you seemed open to this, a nuanced level of consequences for these violations. Which is what I think Omar is advocating for. I thought your criticism was that you think she's saying we should treat them exactly like we treat Iran.

Nuance is hard, but it doesn't have to be this hard.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #304  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:26 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't get it. In post 292 you seemed open to this, a nuanced level of consequences for these violations. Which is what I think Omar is advocating for. I thought your criticism was that you think she's saying we should treat them exactly like we treat Iran.

Nuance is hard, but it doesn't have to be this hard.
You literally accused me of "extrapolating in what appears to me to be the most negative possible interpretation" and that "Holding them to the same standards doesn't mean treating them exactly the same" when you and I both said that she wants to punish Egypt like how Iran gets punished.

So again, is this all some kind of put-on? You accuse me of trying to make her look bad by giving a plain reading to what she wrote, but you and I actually are in total agreement on what she wrote?

Did you ever actually read any of my posts?

Last edited by Ravenman; 03-18-2019 at 03:26 PM.
  #305  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:30 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
You literally accused me of "extrapolating in what appears to me to be the most negative possible interpretation" and that "Holding them to the same standards doesn't mean treating them exactly the same" when you and I both said that she wants to punish Egypt like how Iran gets punished.

So again, is this all some kind of put-on? You accuse me of trying to make her look bad by giving a plain reading to what she wrote, but you and I actually are in total agreement on what she wrote?

Did you ever actually read any of my posts?
I never said that she was saying we should treat them exactly like Iran.

Now I'm really confused. I'll try and lay out my understanding of our disagreement as simply as I can:

Your position is that Omar thinks we should treat Egypt and Saudi Arabia exactly like we treat Iran, and that this is a foolish position. Is this right?

My position is that Omar thinks Egypt and Saudi Arabia (and others) currently face no consequences for violations of human rights, and that they should face some consequences, though I see no reason to believe she thinks we should treat them exactly as we do Iran. Further, I think her position is actually quite close to what you advocate in the last paragraph of post 292.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-18-2019 at 03:31 PM.
  #306  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:43 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,610
It's pretty hard to engage in a good-faith debate with this kind of double-talk going on.

It's clear to me that you've determined that I'm wrong no matter what I have said, probably because I'm not a fan of Rep. Omar, and therefore if you, she, and I all say "the sky is blue!" then I must be saying so for the wrong reasons.
  #307  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:48 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: 41,541
I have never seen people in such agreement so angry with one another . Can it be chalked up to an honest misunderstanding and move on?
  #308  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It's pretty hard to engage in a good-faith debate with this kind of double-talk going on.



It's clear to me that you've determined that I'm wrong no matter what I have said, probably because I'm not a fan of Rep. Omar, and therefore if you, she, and I all say "the sky is blue!" then I must be saying so for the wrong reasons.
Apologies for wherever I went wrong. I was sincerely trying for a discussion and apparently I failed.

I'm happy to try again to explain what I think is the point of our disagreement, if you're open to it, but if not, I just apologize for however I miscommunicated my point. I'm sincerely and honestly trying, but apparently I've failed so far.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #309  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:52 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: 41,541
May I offer an analogy?

Let's say there are two mob bosses, Jones and Smith. Jones is cooperating with the FBI to put other mob bosses away. Smith isn't.

The FBI is doing their best to destroy Smith's mob, take down all his flunkies. But they're leaving Jones's mob alone, on the basis that he's offering them enough help that they can overlook his criminal network and its ongoing campaign of violence.

A new agent comes in and says, "I know Jones is helping us, but we can't let him continue to commit crimes! Maybe we cut him a little slack, but he's continuing to murder, extort, and otherwise flout the law; how is that okay?"

Omar is the new agent. Jones is Saudi Arabia. Smith is Iran.

Is this a fair analogy for events?
  #310  
Old 03-18-2019, 03:55 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
May I offer an analogy?

Let's say there are two mob bosses, Jones and Smith. Jones is cooperating with the FBI to put other mob bosses away. Smith isn't.

The FBI is doing their best to destroy Smith's mob, take down all his flunkies. But they're leaving Jones's mob alone, on the basis that he's offering them enough help that they can overlook his criminal network and its ongoing campaign of violence.

A new agent comes in and says, "I know Jones is helping us, but we can't let him continue to commit crimes! Maybe we cut him a little slack, but he's continuing to murder, extort, and otherwise flout the law; how is that okay?"

Omar is the new agent. Jones is Saudi Arabia. Smith is Iran.

Is this a fair analogy for events?
I think it's fair, broadly speaking.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #311  
Old 03-18-2019, 04:42 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Apologies for wherever I went wrong.
Thank you, thee sorts of misunderstandings can happen. I got very frustrated there.

As for the analogy, I agree that is pretty good. But Special Agent Omar’s perspective could be too narrow in some cases: she may be right to question why we are letting Jones continue his protection racket.

But US Attorney... Somebody... may have the view that Smith is a far greater danger to the community, and that to take down the murderous Smith gang, we have to hold our noses for Jones’ serious crimes of arsons on various businesses who aren’t paying up.

This I think is an extremely difficult ethical question, to which a simple “We should hold Jones and Smith to the same standard” is totally inadequate to resolve. That “solution” could be: just a cheap political shot at the US Attorney; an earnest recommendation to get tough on Jones even with the risk of losing the case against Smith; hope that we can call Jones’ bluff and get the best of both worlds; or evidence that the Special Agent doesn’t really understand all the issues in play.
  #312  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:46 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Omar has an Op-Ed in the Washington Post today.

I'm curious what other folks think about it. ....
Wapo has a pay wall. I dont consider them a cite
  #313  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:47 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
...

Why not just judge her on her words and actions, including her past tweets, apologies, and this Op-Ed?
There was no apology. "I am sorry for you if you feel offended" is not a apology, in fact it makes things worse.
  #314  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:52 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: 41,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Wapo has a pay wall. I dont consider them a cite
nifty
  #315  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:54 PM
ElvisL1ves is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Wapo has a pay wall. I dont consider them a cite
Use private mode. Unless you have a different reason.
  #316  
Old 03-18-2019, 05:57 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: 41,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
As for the analogy, I agree that is pretty good. But Special Agent Omar’s perspective could be too narrow in some cases: she may be right to question why we are letting Jones continue his protection racket.

But US Attorney... Somebody... may have the view that Smith is a far greater danger to the community, and that to take down the murderous Smith gang, we have to hold our noses for Jones’ serious crimes of arsons on various businesses who aren’t paying up.

This I think is an extremely difficult ethical question, to which a simple “We should hold Jones and Smith to the same standard” is totally inadequate to resolve. That “solution” could be: just a cheap political shot at the US Attorney; an earnest recommendation to get tough on Jones even with the risk of losing the case against Smith; hope that we can call Jones’ bluff and get the best of both worlds; or evidence that the Special Agent doesn’t really understand all the issues in play.
There's two things:
1) Is it an extremely difficult ethical situation? Sure.
2) Is "We should hold Jones and Smith to the same standard" a valid stance? Absolutely. It's just as valid as "We should cut Jones some slack so that we accomplish our other goals."

In fact, this distinction--between "start with principles and work from there" and "you have to take real-world factors into account, even if it means bending principles"--is one of the major debates in ethics. It's unfair, in my opinion, to describe EITHER perspective as "simple."

I tend toward the view that we're far too soft on our allies, and that we tend to ally with people when it's profitable for the in-power class to do so. I tend toward the view that realpolitik inevitably gets corrupted by folks in power, and that we need to center human rights above most other concerns, and sacrifice principles to human rights only when doing so obviously results in a greater benefit to human rights.

But I recognize that this isn't a simple debate, on either side.
  #317  
Old 03-18-2019, 06:35 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
2) Is "We should hold Jones and Smith to the same standard" a valid stance? Absolutely. It's just as valid as "We should cut Jones some slack so that we accomplish our other goals."
In this hypothetical we are talking about, what does it mean to "hold Jones and Smith to the same standard?"
  #318  
Old 03-18-2019, 07:10 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,071
I think a good deal of confusion is rooted in the fact that she has English as a second language. Her thoughts might well be clearer than her prose, one can only hope. By comparison, such worthies as Rep. Goober and Rep. King don't even have English as a first language, but the intent of their words is appallingly clear.
  #319  
Old 03-19-2019, 03:26 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: 41,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
In this hypothetical we are talking about, what does it mean to "hold Jones and Smith to the same standard?"
Analogies are gonna break down if you get too granular on them--but it might, for example, mean that we don't turn a blind eye toward continuing serious crimes. It might mean saying, "Look, we're gonna let you get away with that brothel you were running, but it breaks the law, and next time we come back, if it's still operational, we're gonna raid it and prosecute you, so, y'know, heads up."

On an international level, we might say, "Look, we know there have been serious human rights abuses in your past, but it violates our foreign policy to continue to give aid to nations that don't have plans to improve their human rights record. Let's sit down and talk about what that would look like."

When we're choosing allies, it might look like prioritizing alliances with nations with good human rights records, over alliances with nations that have favorable trade deals with us.
  #320  
Old 03-19-2019, 06:30 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by adaher View Post
It's not an act of desperation to respond to your life sucking by killing people. When that happens here, we call them losers. You know what desperate people do? they surrender.
It is when the reason your life sucks are the people you are killing. Those who are oppressed will, when all else fails, try to kill their oppressors--including the civilians who put them in power. That is one of the reasons it is not in any party's best interest to oppress people to that extent.

It's not like Israel hasn't indicated they will never accept Arabs as full people. Remember, Arabic Israelis are secondary citizens due to that law passed in 2018. Self-determination--democracy itself!--is providence only of those of Jewish decent within Israel's borders.

Last edited by BigT; 03-19-2019 at 06:33 PM.
  #321  
Old 03-19-2019, 06:56 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
...
It's not like Israel hasn't indicated they will never accept Arabs as full people. Remember, Arabic Israelis are secondary citizens due to that law passed in 2018. Self-determination--democracy itself!--is providence only of those of Jewish decent within Israel's borders.

The law does three big things:

It states that “the right to exercise national self-determination” in Israel is “unique to the Jewish people.”
It establishes Hebrew as Israel’s official language, and downgrades Arabic — a language widely spoken by Arab Israelis — to a “special status.”
It establishes “Jewish settlement as a national value” and mandates that the state “will labor to encourage and promote its establishment and development.”


None of those things makes "Arabic Israelis are secondary citizens ". They get to vote, they get to practice their religion, they can serve office. "Arab Israelis, on the other hand, are citizens of Israel and therefore, at least in theory, have access to the same passports, elections, education, health care, infrastructure, and security as Jewish Israelis."

In fact a good number of the Knesset are Arabic and even Muslim:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...of_the_Knesset


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Second_Intifada
Hamas Charter (1988)The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree (evidently a certain kind of tree), would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.[148]Article 22 states that the French revolution, the Russian revolution, colonialism and both world wars were created by the Zionists or forces supportive of Zionism:
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.


and
Statements on the Holocaust
Hamas has been explicit in its Holocaust denial. In reaction to the Stockholm conference on the Jewish Holocaust, held in late January 2000, Hamas issued a press release that it published on its official website, containing the following statements from a senior leader:

This conference bears a clear Zionist goal, aimed at forging history by hiding the truth about the so-called Holocaust, which is an alleged and invented story with no basis. (...) The invention of these grand illusions of an alleged crime that never occurred, ignoring the millions of dead European victims of Nazism during the war, clearly reveals the racist Zionist face, which believes in the superiority of the Jewish race over the rest of the nations. (...) By these methods, the Jews in the world flout scientific methods of research whenever that research contradicts their racist interests.[346]

In August 2003, senior Hamas official Dr Abd Al-Aziz Al-Rantisi wrote in the Hamas newspaper Al-Risala that the Zionists encouraged murder of Jews by the Nazis with the aim of forcing them to immigrate to Palestine.[347]
  #322  
Old 03-19-2019, 10:09 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Omar has apologized, and I think it was a genuine apology. I've also made clear my views on our obsession with Israel. But, but, but, all of that out of the way...

Her problem is that she's a global thinker representing a district that isn't global; it's local. Her district has local problems, not global ones. I defend her right to criticize Israel, but I'm not her constituent. I also support her constituents rights to vote her ass out if they feel that she's an embarrassment. And I support the Democratic party's right to strip her of committee assignments if they think she's a political liability. I'm an idealist, but also a pragmatist, and I don't want one person's crusade to sink what is a much more important vessel of progressive ideology. If she's not up to the job, then Democrats should primary her ass.
  #323  
Old 03-20-2019, 12:01 AM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
If she's not up to the job, then Democrats should primary her ass.
She represents Minneapolis and some attached western suburbs, population @710,000. While we have a history of supporting the same person for long periods of time, if she pisses off too many people then sure, she'll get primaried and replaced. No, a Republican is NOT going to win that district. It's a D+24 district and she stomped the Republican 78 to 21.7% even as a complete unknown. That district went for Hillary 74-19. The most competitive it has been was 2006 after Sabo (who held the seat for 28 years) retired. Keith Ellison won with 55.6%.

But anyway, she got a national bully pulpit, she used it. Given the amount of hateful shit people like Steve King and all too many others to name spout on a daily basis, I'm a lot less inclined to expect a Democrat to be perfect and flawless. We don't elect Mary Fucking Poppins to Congress, we elect actual humans, and a couple of bible verses come immediately to mind when Republicans point out her flaws. Something about a splinter and a great beam, I believe.

Finally,

Minneapolis and the suburbs in that district have a decent Jewish population. Hell, the city of St. Louis Park has for decades been called "St. Jewish Park". There is no local Jewish call for her censure or resignation.

Last edited by Chimera; 03-20-2019 at 12:02 AM.
  #324  
Old 03-20-2019, 01:14 AM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Omar has apologized, and I think it was a genuine apology. ...
It is absolutely clear it wasn't. She later stated it was one of those "I am sorry that you felt that way" non-apologies.
  #325  
Old 03-20-2019, 05:55 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It is absolutely clear it wasn't. She later stated it was one of those "I am sorry that you felt that way" non-apologies.
I don't expect her to apologize for what she intended to say; I expect her to apologize for how what she said could have been interpreted by some people, which is what she did. She said what was necessary. Her critics should turn the page, and as I've said, she needs to help them do that by focusing on issues she can have more meaningful impact on.
  #326  
Old 03-20-2019, 06:45 AM
NAF1138 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post

Minneapolis and the suburbs in that district have a decent Jewish population. Hell, the city of St. Louis Park has for decades been called "St. Jewish Park". There is no local Jewish call for her censure or resignation.
Nor should there be. I firmly believe that Omar has an antisemitic worldview. But you know what, so do most people. I don't believe she holds actual hate for Jews in her heart, she's just mildly biased against them in a sort of systemic way thay it is hard for her to see. She has, as far as I can tell, recognized this about herself even though she hasn't yet been able to correct it. Calls for censure or resignation won't help, it will just dig her in further. Also, other than holding personal biases she's going a good job and what person doesn't have some biases? She's human.

I think the Republican dog piling on her has distorted the story to the point of insanity. Her statements were predjuciced but the world exists in shades of grey.
  #327  
Old 03-20-2019, 02:05 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I don't expect her to apologize for what she intended to say; I expect her to apologize for how what she said could have been interpreted by some people, which is what she did.....
That's not a apology, that's blaming her audience.
  #328  
Old 03-20-2019, 05:18 PM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's not a apology, that's blaming her audience.
She apologized for what she said. There were no half apploiges or "sorry how you felts" involved. She owned up to her words, and entirely apologized for using them.

OTOH, she has denied the accusations against that she hates jews, and has not apologized for the accusations leveled at her that she hates jews.

You say she is blaming her audience. Quote where she blames her audience. Quote the words that she used when she, as you claim, blamed her audience.

I do not expect her to apologize for how other people have chosen to feel about her based on her background, and I don't understand why you are insistent that she should.

How far do you need to beat her down before you are willing to accept that she did not mean the remarks as anti-semitism?

Have you ever said anything in your life that was poorly worded, and you found that people took exception to how you said something? Would an apology for that bad wording only be a half apology if you do not admit to the implications that people have decided your words mean about you?
  #329  
Old 03-20-2019, 08:54 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
She apologized for what she said. There were no half apploiges or "sorry how you felts" involved. She owned up to her words, and entirely apologized for using them.

...
You say she is blaming her audience. Quote where she blames her audience. Quote the words that she used when she, as you claim, blamed her audience.
...
Post 244 by Jackmanni:



In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it's noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:

"Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"

Omar: "Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel."



She wasn't apologizing for "a badly worded tweet" or "being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"- she "apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

In other words, it was their fault, not hers. Not a apology.

Note that on post 119 i said "She said a couple things over the line, but I think her apology was sincere, I think that's enough, for now.

Let's give her a break."


However, that interview made it very clear her apology was not sincere.
  #330  
Old 03-21-2019, 09:49 AM
k9bfriender is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Post 244 by Jackmanni:

In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it's noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:

"Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"

Omar: "Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

So, you are saying that she was being anti-semitic, and she should admit and apologize for that, for you to take her apology seriously?

She didn't use the passive aggressive "I apologize if people were offended" non- apology, she used the active "the way my words..." She acknowledged that her words hurt people, and she apologized for that. She did not in any way blame her audience.

There are two questions there. One is, "was it a badly worded tweet?", and the other is "are you anti-semitic?" She answered the second question. How did you want her to answer it? You will only believe that she's not anti-semitic if she admits to being anti-semitic? That doesn't even make any sense.

By apologizing for how her words made people feel, not apologizing "for anyone who was offended", she's "blaming her audience"?

Do you not see the very stark difference between owning the fact that your words hurt people and apologizing "if they offended"? Do you really feel that they are the same? If I accidently hit someone, and I apologize for how I hurt them, am I blaming my audience?
Quote:
Quote:

She wasn't apologizing for "a badly worded tweet" or "being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"- she "apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

In other words, it was their fault, not hers. Not a apology.
If that is how you have chosen to take her words, then that is your choice. I am just saying that the words she actually spoke do not support that conclusion.
Quote:
Note that on post 119 i said "She said a couple things over the line, but I think her apology was sincere, I think that's enough, for now.

Let's give her a break."
And I'd agree with that, but you were still primed to find *something* wrong with her, as evidenced when you quickly changed your opinion based on an out of context quote with some motivated reasoning placed behind its interpretation.
Quote:
However, that interview made it very clear her apology was not sincere.
I disagree entirely that that single question/response taken from a much longer interview supports your opinion in the slightest, much less makes it very clear.

If you go looking for insult, it's not hard to find.

I'm not saying she's not an anti-semite, I don't know her, she may very well be, I'm just saying that you have failed to make a convincing case that she is.
  #331  
Old 03-21-2019, 11:38 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
But she's a democrat, and democrats are pussies who can and should be forced to apologize for their actions and their existence.

A good Republican would call you a pussy if you even asked him to apologize. Because only weaklings and democrats apologize.
  #332  
Old 03-22-2019, 04:04 AM
Dr. Crap is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
... I firmly believe that Omar has an antisemitic worldview. But you know what, so do most people. ...
How'd you come to that conclusion?
  #333  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:22 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That's not a apology, that's blaming her audience.
I'll try this again, she doesn't need to apologize for what she meant to say, and she doesn't need to apologize for unintentionally saying something that reminded people of an anti-Jewish trope, even though it was clearly not an anti-Jewish trope when the language is analyzed in its proper context. She absolutely should acknowledge that what she said could have been interpreted by some to be potentially antisemitic, but context matters here.

Meanwhile, let's go back to the gist of what she was talking about in the first place, which is how the United States continues to encourage Israel to push people who have lived in Palestine and Golan for centuries, replacing them with new Israeli settlements. Is anyone allowed to talk about that without being called a Jew hater?
  #334  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:24 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Crap View Post
How'd you come to that conclusion?
Because Zionists always want the world to believe that Zionists are victims.

Victimization justifies Israeli genocide of Arabs.

Last edited by asahi; 03-22-2019 at 06:25 AM.
  #335  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:26 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because Zionists always want the world to believe that Zionists are victims.

Victimization justifies Israeli genocide of Arabs.
This is bigoted bullshit.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #336  
Old 03-22-2019, 06:54 AM
NAF1138 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because Zionists always want the world to believe that Zionists are victims.

Victimization justifies Israeli genocide of Arabs.
Thanks for giving me permission to dismiss everything you have ever said.
  #337  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:34 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
Thanks for giving me permission to dismiss everything you have ever said.
Oh come off it, you already dismissed everything I ever said.

America, with its very, very limited knowledge of the world beyond Hollywood, is one of the few countries that actually doesn't acknowledge that Israel's policies, particularly in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu, are policies of ethnic cleansing and the religious purification of Israel. At least in the time before Bibi, there was a modicum of tolerance and the possibility that Israel might ultimately develop into a state that could overcome the gravity of its past and become a model for its more oppressive neighbors. Now they don't even want Africans apparently, despite the fact that many of them were born in Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.pre...sing-1.5729589
  #338  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:50 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Oh come off it, you already dismissed everything I ever said.

America, with its very, very limited knowledge of the world beyond Hollywood, is one of the few countries that actually doesn't acknowledge that Israel's policies, particularly in the era of Benjamin Netanyahu, are policies of ethnic cleansing and the religious purification of Israel. At least in the time before Bibi, there was a modicum of tolerance and the possibility that Israel might ultimately develop into a state that could overcome the gravity of its past and become a model for its more oppressive neighbors. Now they don't even want Africans apparently, despite the fact that many of them were born in Israel.

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.pre...sing-1.5729589
And this, IMO, is a non-bigoted and relatively reasonable criticism of the current Israeli government's policies. You should learn the difference between that and bigoted bullshit like your previous post.
  #339  
Old 03-22-2019, 08:57 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is bigoted bullshit.
Only because you, like most Americans, are incredibly ignorant of what Israel has done, and what it continues to do in the name of establishing safety for Jews. America's the only place in the Western democratic world where one cannot have balanced criticism of Israel without being labeled a antisemite. The result of this is that we've stood by and watched as our "ally" has shot missiles into heavily populated neighborhoods, bulldozed entire communities, bombed bridges that have cut off cities from food and medical supplies, destroyed water treatment facilities, and thrown hundreds of thousands of refugees into perpetual squalor, all because someone - can't say who - occasionally fires a rocket into Israel territory. That's happened with regular frequency in just the past 10-15 years, never mind the very controversial history of Israel's settlement and establishment.

We are not helping Israel or Jews by muting criticism; we are allowing Israel and Zionism to behave at its worst, and in the long term, that will cause far more harm to Israel and the world's Jews. It's critical that we have a space for valid, even harsh criticism of Zionism in the same way that we have a space for harsh criticism of some of the more conservative brands of Islam or Christianity. And using the term Zionism isn't loaded; rather it is necessary because it is a term with special meaning. People shit their pants whenever they hear talk of Islam building a caliphate, and with good reason. Yet we've become anesthetized to the idea of Zionism, which although admittedly may not be congruent to a Muslim empire, nevertheless has some parallels.
  #340  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:03 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Only because you, like most Americans, are incredibly ignorant of what Israel has done, and what it continues to do in the name of establishing safety for Jews. America's the only place in the Western democratic world where one cannot have balanced criticism of Israel without being labeled a antisemite. The result of this is that we've stood by and watched as our "ally" has shot missiles into heavily populated neighborhoods, bulldozed entire communities, bombed bridges that have cut off cities from food and medical supplies, destroyed water treatment facilities, and thrown hundreds of thousands of refugees into perpetual squalor, all because someone - can't say who - occasionally fires a rocket into Israel territory. That's happened with regular frequency in just the past 10-15 years, never mind the very controversial history of Israel's settlement and establishment.

We are not helping Israel or Jews by muting criticism; we are allowing Israel and Zionism to behave at its worst, and in the long term, that will cause far more harm to Israel and the world's Jews. It's critical that we have a space for valid, even harsh criticism of Zionism in the same way that we have a space for harsh criticism of some of the more conservative brands of Islam or Christianity. And using the term Zionism isn't loaded; rather it is necessary because it is a term with special meaning. People shit their pants whenever they hear talk of Islam building a caliphate, and with good reason. Yet we've become anesthetized to the idea of Zionism, which although admittedly may not be congruent to a Muslim empire, nevertheless has some parallels.
Whether true or not, none of this justifies your bigoted slander of any and everyone who identifies as a Zionist.
  #341  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:06 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And this, IMO, is a non-bigoted and relatively reasonable criticism of the current Israeli government's policies. You should learn the difference between that and bigoted bullshit like your previous post.
Yes, my previous post was harsh, and I intended it to be, because harsh though it may be, it is generally accurate in depicting how people in the United States can NEVER criticize Israel without having to walk on eggshells.

Some of the harshest critics of Zionism are themselves intellectual, moderate, compassionate Jews and even softer Zionists themselves. It is not antisemitic to point out crimes in the name of the Judaism and Jewish state. It is antisemitic not to, because it makes a compelling case for some future right wing populist nut job to point to the example of Israel as a case for why they deserve to be treated as a scorned people. Of all the people who should know why Israel's policies, not only now but since 1948 (and even before) have been harmful, and the potential dangers associated with those policies, it should be Israeli Jews and Zionists. Today in 2019, they are committing some of the worst, most barbaric violations of human rights and human dignity on the planet, and nobody in this country can call them out without being fearful of being called a bigot because post-Holocaust war guilt shields them.
  #342  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:21 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Whether true or not, none of this justifies your bigoted slander of any and everyone who identifies as a Zionist.
What if we were to say, "None of this justifies bigoted slander of any and everyone who identifies as an Islamist."

Would you still feel the same way?

I mean Zionists want a religious-based homeland, and Islamists want a Caliphate. I'm sure there are differences, and I'm not arguing there's congruence, but aren't there some parallels here?
  #343  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
What if we were to say, "None of this justifies bigoted slander of any and everyone who identifies as an Islamist."

Would you still feel the same way?

I mean Zionists want a religious-based homeland, and Islamists want a Caliphate. I'm sure there are differences, and I'm not arguing there's congruence, but aren't there some parallels here?
I don't know, but your last paragraph is not accurate for all Zionists. Your blanket statements about Zionists are indeed bigoted. Further, there's no reason for them, when it's entirely possible to (and you're entirely capable of) criticizing Israeli government policy in a reasonable and coherent manner.
  #344  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:42 AM
NAF1138 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: North of Philly
Posts: 10,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Oh come off it, you already dismissed everything I ever said.
Well that's not true either. Prejudice really is fun!
  #345  
Old 03-22-2019, 09:57 AM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
...people in the United States can NEVER criticize Israel without having to walk on eggshells...nobody in this country can call them out without being fearful of being called a bigot because post-Holocaust war guilt shields them.
A standard trope, but false. Here's a handy guide for what happens in the vast, overwhelming majority of instances:

1) you can criticize Israeli without being called an anti-Semite.
2) you can criticize Israeli in harsh fashion without being called an anti-Semite.
3) you can criticize Israel in harsh, one-sided fashion without being called an anti-Semite.

but

4) if you criticize Israel in harsh, one-sided fashion while using anti-Semitic stereotypes or evoking standard anti-Semitic memes, you quite likely will be called out on it.

Avoid yammering about Israel-inspired plots to dominate the world through money, blood libel smears, dual loyalty accusations etc. and all will be kosher.
  #346  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:21 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAF1138 View Post
Well that's not true either. Prejudice really is fun!
Let's go back to the original comment you made, in which you accused Omar of being antisemitic (not to be confused with anti-Zionist), and further added that 'most people are' antisemitic. That hardly seems like a fair statement, and yet you're presumably complaining about how unfairly Zionists and Jews are treated. You want to come on here with a persecution complex and then claim high ground when people throw it back at you. Well, tough bleep. You actually are a perfect illustration of what I've been saying, which is that in American political discourse, criticism toward Israel and political Zionism are often (intentionally, IMO) conflated with being anti-Jewish. If someone is an asshole to a Jew for being a Jew, that's being antisemitic. But antisemitism isn't whatever you say it is.

Last edited by asahi; 03-22-2019 at 02:25 PM.
  #347  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:28 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because Zionists always want the world to believe that Zionists are victims.

Victimization justifies Israeli genocide of Arabs.
Pretty damn bigoted statement there. Especially since there is no "Israeli genocide of Arabs", unless you count "building houses in disputed areas' as "genocide".

Hamas actively preaches the eradication if Jews and Israel. They blow up busses full of schoolkids, and launch random mortar and rocket attacks into residential neighborhoods.

But it's the Israeli's who are practicing genocide. Riiiight. Yep,NAF1138 is right, you just gave us justification to ignore your bigoted opinions here.
  #348  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:35 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Pretty damn bigoted statement there. Especially since there is no "Israeli genocide of Arabs", unless you count "building houses in disputed areas' as "genocide".

Hamas actively preaches the eradication if Jews and Israel. They blow up busses full of schoolkids, and launch random mortar and rocket attacks into residential neighborhoods.

But it's the Israeli's who are practicing genocide. Riiiight. Yep,NAF1138 is right, you just gave us justification to ignore your bigoted opinions here.
I'm not even going to respond to this because it's clear you have no knowledge of what actually happens other than what you watch on television.

Have a nice day.
  #349  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:44 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: 41,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Oh come off it, you already dismissed everything I ever said.
Before this thread, I didn't.
  #350  
Old 03-22-2019, 02:45 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm not even going to respond to this because it's clear you have no knowledge of what actually happens other than what you watch on television.

Have a nice day.
I've been following along this discussion and I am genuinely interested in what actions are being taken that you label "Israeli genocide of Arabs"
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 04:06 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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017