Of course it’s not impossible. The question is whether it’s actually done.
Obviously something you’re lacking as it’s pretty clearly a typo for “no.”
Implying only to a sub-literate retard desperately searching for a hook to hang his conclusion on. The point of this thread is not that december is an idjit - which not only not being news, is actually quite pedestrian – but that particular line of argumentation, if we can call it that, was really astoundingly stupid. And not worthy of a GD thread, but perhaps some silly IMHO maundering.
Given your record so far it is fairly clear the evidence is towards the former, my dear moron.
It happens all the time Neurotik. For one example, British Newspapers which are owned by News International or one of it’s subsiduaries (sp?) waste no oppertunity to lambast the BBC over the television licence funding, purely because Rupert Murdoch owns Sky Broadcasting, the competitor with the BBC in the Digital Television market.
I don’t think that L_C suggested that there is definite Pro-Israeli bias in the American media, but that there is a possible reasoning that could be assumed if it were ever shown that the media took a bias in its reporting.
Remember, in the Media, Bias isn’t always a bad thing, but something that should be presented fairly.
No. But if someone is making a suggestion that this is a systemic practice, in a manner calculated to invoke anti-Semitic feeling (again, a knowledge of the history of bigotry toward Jews helps), the onus is on that person to make the case that such influence is occurring.
I suspect that LC regrets that he ever allowed himself to be drawn out to expand on his initial insinuations (to the extent of harping on names of Jews involved in the media etc.). He’s the type that prefers making smarmy hints, rather than going into overt expressions of hatred like some of the other bigots who’ve spread excrement over this board from time to time. In this, he’s sort of like a one-time peripatetic U.S. presidential candidate, Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche specialized in naming prominent politicians as communist “agents of influence”, successfully remaining just out of the reach of libel laws (he ultimately was jailed for one or more acts of sleazebaggery, the details of which I forget). A comical but repellent figure.
FTR, I am also Jewish and I am fairly certain that I’m not the only Jewish poster on this board (I can think of two others right off the top of my head) who has consistently opposed the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, as well as Sharon’s policy with respect to the Palestinians. The editorial management of the Nation also figures many Jews and there has been many a Nation column/editorial on the subject of how Jewish does not = being pro any specific Israeli policy (including the overarching idea of Zionism).
The problem with the term “pro-Israeli lobby” in relation to the list of pubications London has provided isn’t that it’s racist–I think London deserves far too much credit to be tarred with that brush in the absence of other evidence (and there isn’t any other evidence). The problem is that the term implies a more monolithic political stance than can be justified in relation to those examples. It’s well known that non-Jewish and Jewish neoconservative hawks have collaborated in influencing and shaping Bush’s Middle East policy. But to compare, say, the editorial position of the Times to the Wolfowitz party line makes no sense at all. There are, in other words, many Jews (and other Americans) who may wish Israel well but don’t believe that Bush is doing it any favors with this kind of foreign policy–in fact there are many Israelis who feel that way.
The United States has historically been Israel’s close ally and that historical bond has led to a particular relationship–just as the “special relationship” between Britain and the United States has sometimes involved those countries judging each other and acting towards each other somewhat differently than they would any other ally. Loosely speaking I’d say that the New York Times–quite apart from its mamagement and the fact that it’s located in a city with a large Jewish population–is influenced by that special relationship and its history. But it’s a testimony to the limits of that influence that the New York Times did not cheerlead for this war and has maintained a fairly consistently moderate and often critical position with respect to it and its aftermath. (I do agree though that the NYT’s coverage of events in Israel could be more stringent than it is though I think it has improved somewhat over the years as Sharon’s policies have become harsher–though that’s just an impression.) Conversely, there are also a lot of Jews living in London–more than in all of Israel if I’m not mistaken, and yet Blair’s support for the war in Iraq seems to have had very little to do with that fact.
In sum: Complicated though it can be, I think it’s necessary to back off from any assumption about what kind of political position Jewish lineage might be thought to imply and, more important, to recognize signficant differences within a United States spectrum that might, in a very loose way, be construed as favorable to Israel’s thriving.
I guess I can’t rely on any of these news sources to report on women’s issues fairly, cus they’re “controlled” by men. Or stories about kids for that matter- all of 'em are over 30.
The rolleyes icon doesn’t do this justice.
There’s a fundamental difference between the administration following their long-time suggestions and them (Perle & Wolfowitz) controlling the government. If someone founds a school of thought that others find compelling and chose to follow it of their own free will, this does not carry the implication that the former is manipulating or can manipulate the latter for his own ends. The suggestion that the Jewish control of the US government is a factor in influencing the direction of US foreign policy assumes that the actual leaders are stooges who are acting against their own self interest, due to the sinister influence of those who are manipulating them. Otherwise, their Jewishness is irrelevent.
(This is all even assuming that Perle & Wolfowitz have in fact been prominent all this time for making these suggestions. I recall Perle as a prominent anti-communist cold warrior, but not as being prominent in Middle-East debates, and Wolfowitz not at all. But I don’t follow these matters closely at that level, so you could well be right.)
Sounds like you’re saying that in this particular instance your remarks were unjustified, but that you are relying on other unspecified remarks that he’s made to attribute to him that sentiment. I’ve seen this type of thing before, and in debates about december too, no less. Not a proper technique, IMHO. (Let’s see what you think if december tries something like this).
Not sure what you mean here. You seem to be implying that there is some inconsistency between my posts to that thread and those here. I don’t see any.
Well, I am not saying it was a direct result of JC’s conservative bent, I think it contributed indirectly, as described above. IOW, Joe’s positions created a situation where the vast majority of posters to these threads were guaranteed to oppose him and anyone who chose to defend him. This in turn was not helpful to his case.
My point here was that you cannot focus on the overall label of the poster, but rather on the position he was trashed for defending. (In a similar vein, Danielinthewolvesden was firmly liberal politically, but got in trouble mostly by trying to defend biblical literalism).
But again, this is just my subjective opinion - I don’t think any of this is provable - we seem to agree about this.
It does not appear that you’ve read the linked threads.
Good lord, what are you gibbering about? I tend to take my weekends from Friday 5pm till Monday 8am, GMT. If this surprises you may I gently suggest you get a fucking life?
Oh really? When I read that I was surprised, as I can’t actually recall having any dealings with you in the past. A quick search for our names, all forums, any dates, gives only 3 results, this one, a thread on posting stats, and another thread on post stats. So where exactly have you run into me before? Or would you by any chance be talking complete shite. May I also point out that after my weekends I do reply to threads as soon as possible, as you’ll note in this case. In short,
To what? I’ve already replied to your question on your reference to London_Calling from that previous thread. Please enlighten me on anything I’ve managed to miss, or failing that read my previous bloody response.
Perchance not.
You might remember a thread I started in GD awhile back (the hamsters seem to have devoured it, or at least it doesn’t pop up in a search) questioning a whining German newspaper editorial about how Europeans were “helpless” to counter U.S. influence. You were quite insistent in that thread about how I respond in a particular way to every permutation of questions you had. But when I asked you if Europeans had an obligation to put pressure on Palestinians in a similar manner to the U.S. having an obligation to pressure Israel towards peace, there was total silence on your part. Since the thread was, I believe, more than a year ago, it’s been a very very long weekend on your part.
**
No, you have not addressed the point. This was what I asked you:
Gary, please comment on this reference to LC:
…“the smear of “Jewish media control” is the stock in trade of tinfoil-hatted anti-Semitic bigots everywhere, and by parroting it continually, you’ve put yourself into their company.”
I’ll help you by rephrasing the question.
Should undocumented accusations be made that feed into a common strain of bigotry (other examples might include insinuations that Catholics want the world to be dominated by the Pope, or that blacks lust after white women) without being challenged as such?
Is it necessary in your world that to be labeled anti-Semites, people have to commit overt acts like burning synagogues or raving about kikes? Or are you capable of recognizing that demonizing a group of people through references to “Jewish media control”, “international bankers” and the like are anti-Semitic as well?
As I said before, proposing such theories is only remotely acceptable when one provides solid documentation to back them up. Failing that, one is merely a bigot.
By the way, in attempting previously to lump me with posters like december whom you feel can be readily marginalized, you conspicuously left out Izzy, who also has said that London_Calling’s remarks smacked of bigotry. And others have since expressed their disdain.
Is it just a little too difficult to marginalize all of us?
The NYT and the Globe are not readily viewed here as being sympathetic toward Israel. Mandelstam also said it: “Jewish” does not always equal “pro-Israel.” Jews are just as likely to be liberals as not, which would make them oppositional to the Christian evangelicals, business sectors, the military…all pockets of right-wing support of Israel. The NYT and the Globe are better representative of the left, which historically has the larger sympathy for the Palestinian side. [The others I don’t know enough to argue about.]
Now if you happen to be a follower of Indymedia UK or something, with a strong pro-Palestinian bent and you’re viewing the US media as a whole - sure it looks biased. That might be because where you’re standing on the I-P spectrum, you may be perilously close to falling off the end of it if heaven forbid you should sneeze. No, you will not see those polar positions represented. You won’t see the editorials calling for the end of the Jewish state, nor the editorials from the other side claiming that the Palestinian state already exists but nowadays it’s called Jordan. And why should you.
Bias is defined by one’s own POV.
Oh go away. You produce as evidence a thread that fortunately for you has disappeared. Try harder, or admit you were talking bollocks.
As you appear to have selective reading skills, may I a direct you to my post right below your original posting of this accusation, with my answer that “your thread shows nothing of bigotry by London_Calling. Nothing at all.”
You accuse him of bigotry. I state that there is nothing in the thread you linked to that justifies the claim. How much more of an answer do you need?
Rephrase your question all you like, but L_C made no anti-semitical accusations or insinuations. Despite this, you have tried repeatedly to create a number of strawmen to attack him with.
Now as you seem to think you have such a clear cut case, please quote directly the statements that you think show such bigotry. Oh, and no more examples from threads that somehow can’t be found please.
I didn’t make it very clear but I meant it in regard to only december.
My point was that in a, presumably, ad hoc discussion of any given (potential) banning, only some Mods/Admins will be available, of which only some will offer views, of whom only some will offer particularly firm views. As I said to wring (back in this thread), we (as posters) can only speculate but, IMHO, in the matter of banning december (which must surely have been discussed), it’s my humble opinion that ** C K Dexter Haven** would;
a) have been available for the discussion,
b) have an opinion, and
c) that it would be a firm opinion
And I’m not sure I would guess many others to so be besides yourself and 2/3 others.
– just my estimation of the discussion ‘situation’ in relation to one particular poster, no more than that.
I had wondered about** C K Dexter Haven’s **religion / ethnicity, but only in passing and in the context of considering his motivations for having such firm opinions (see below). One only has to consider the (now) close relationship between the Christian Right (in the US), many neo-conservative groups and Jewish groups to see that the ‘pro-Israeli’ camp has moved far outside its original Jewish-only base.
That he is Jewish might, as you say, increase the potential for emotional-driven interventions, whether on the board or behind the scenes. Again, I should say that is simply speculation. Nor do I see anything particularly sinister in that, rather it’s an aspect of human nature of which we all need to be aware (and ready to temper) when in positions of responsibility.
Ftr, C K Dexter Haven is a very different cup of tea to our resident racist / race hate inciting / liar and, IMHO, it would be overly simplistic (to the point of being misleading) to associate one with the other – yep, emotionally involved in a similar way but, in relation to postings (“tactics”, as you say) a very different character from december.
You ask for an example of his style. I, obviously, suggest reading the relevant section for context:
Even in his response to this criticism (in the thread) he insists on continuing with emotionally-driven, nonsensical rhetoric. As I say, not december by some measure but there is a certain emotional quality evident that could, as is human nature, leak through to other areas of ones involvement with the board. IMHO.
- c’mon people! I feel as if I haven’t bitten off enough in this thread – any other religious groups, ethnic groups, authorities, political nutters want to have a go ? :eek:
Ooh! He’s having a go at the birds now!
Yes, december is a poster who has been discussed by the staff repeatedly, and undoubtedly he will be discussed again in the future. The discussions surrounding him have indeed been about potentially banning him, at times.
To clarify a few things: when we discuss the banning of a longtime poster (as opposed to, say, a run of the mill 3 post spammer), this is not something that’s decided by a few members of staff. In fact, it will usually require all members of staff to chime in. Nor is it so, that any member of staff (moderator or administrator) has somewhat of a veto right with regards to banning. If the entire staff wants to ban someone, an administrator can’t just neglect that. In fact, moderators often have more “hands-on” knowledge of posters than admins do (seeing as they tend to be more involved with behind the scenes activities rather than the boards themselves), so if anything, the moderator vote with regards to bannings tends to be considerably in weight.
In this example, you presume that with regard to discussing december’s banning, Dex would have had a firm opinion. I can assure you this is not the case: in fact, I recall Dex explicitly reserving judgment and stating that the opinions of the mods who interact with the poster at hand the most would matter more than his.
In short, your estimation of Dex as an administrator of this board is incorrect, certainly inasfar the december files are concerned.
Your example of Dex’s posting style in Israel/Palestine debates is duly noted. It is certainly not a point of view I’d personally subscribe to. Then again, it’s a point of view I’ve seen from plenty of Jews, from either side of the political spectrum, and indeed, from various nations, including my rather liberal country. Without shrouding the whole thing in mystique, I think it’s fair to say that the Israel/Palestine matter affects Jews more than it does you and me, London_Calling. That doesn’t make them right or wrong: it’s just something to take into account when reading about someone’s world view. It differs from ours, in perhaps the same way that my point of view with regard to Northern Ireland will differ from that of the average citizen of Belfast. Less personal involvement.
Thanks for your general candor. And it’s good to know C K Dexter Haven is able to keep his emotions in check behind the scenes. Kudos to him.
Cheers
IMHO, bigotry is bigotry is bigotry nad I don’t feel overly content accepting it from anyone - apart from anything else, by so doing, I’m implicitly accepting it’s okay. And I obviously don’t need to remind you what is this board dedicated to doing, and of which **C K Dexter Haven ** is an Admin.
Anyway, thanks for walking a couple of tricky tightropes and explaining so fully the mechanisms. Cheers.
London_Calling
In response to your challenge for anyone contradict the “facts” you’ve presented, I looked around a bit. I am unable to verify your assertion that Peter Kann (of Dow Jones) is Jewish. This fact appears on all sorts of racist websites, but on racist websites almost everyone is Jewish.
With regards to Katherine Graham (of the Washington Post & Newsweek), your assertion is misleading at best, if not outright false.
http://www.jewishsf.com/bk010727/obp41a.shtml
So I am curious as to the source of your information. Or maybe not so curious. Because in looking at the language of this post, it seemed to me that you did not seem to be writing in your own language. So I looked around a bit, and discovered that most of the post was lifted from an article by a guy named Kevin MacDonald. One can look around at the guy’s website and decide if he is an anti-Semite by whatever definition one chooses - a quick scan says he is certainly a borderline case at best.
I didn’t find his article on his website - it is attributed to him here. (Interestingly, here’s another guy posting that very same article - also from London).
OTOH, I did not find the “Katherine Graham is Jewish” allegation in that guy’s article. But your language on that issue also appears in respectable Aryan sources, e.g. here. Of note is that some of the Kevin MacDonald stuff also appears on that website, so it’s hard to say for sure who was copying who.
But in any event, it would appear that you’ve been posting false or misleading information, lifted - plagiarized, one might say - from racist or quasi-racist sources.
Response please.
Gary, I don’t need to dig up that old thread. You’ve demonstrated amply here that you’ll weasel out of answering direct questions. You’ve addressed nothing in my last post, other than to stick your fingers in your ears and chant “Na na na no bigotry no bigotry.” Not to mention mature responses like
As to why some posters here are reluctant to acknowledge LC’s bigotry, I think part of the reason may involved those parties’ strong disapproval of Israeli policy and a desire to protect posters with similar views, even if they start to fall out of the fringe of acceptable dialogue. One can almost hear the unspoken excuse: “Well, he does natter on about the Jews a bit, but he’s alright.”
No, he’s not alright. He has a sick attitude, one that you’re not helping him to recognize and overcome. And while it’s healthier for him to fling his feces about the SDMB than to do so in real life, where important people would find him a creepy bigot*, it’s not helping to create constructive debate on the Middle East.
*Or would they?
Tee was furiously denounced by Gary for saying this:
“L_C, speaking as someone not even remotely Jewish, I can say the same about certain Europeans. That Israel should be the focus/scapegoat/target for so many in supposedly enlightened countries is both laughable and horrific. That the UK can be both a Coalition member and a haven of anti-Semitism (to the point of exporting bombers, no less) at the same time is quite puzzling to some here in the US.”
I thought this statement overblown and not supported by any of my experiences during brief trips to the U.K. (not that I was wearing a sandwichboard proclaiming my affiliations). If there’s a cultural attitude that makes the objectionable views we’ve seen here more acceptable than in the U.S., I have no data to support it.
It would help to deprive Tee of ammunition if there were fewer apologias for LC from those living in his part of the world.
And lastly regarding C K Dexter Haven. His views are notably more pro-Israel than my own. However he employs knowledge and solid facts to make his positions, and for a bigot to insinuate that C K is a racist and protects racists on the board is false and disgusting.
Fuck off.
I’ve answered every one of your questions directly, and am more than happy to return to any you feel haven’t been addressed. That’s two accusations you’ve made now, neither of them backed up by anything - no quotes, cites or examples.
I ask you one more time - provide one actual quote to back up your statements, you pathetic turd.
London, I dislike the word “racist” in a case like this one. Yeah, I know, december is a special case: he tends to come in with some howlers in Bell Curve type threads too, so the term is arguably quite justified.
But to speak more in the abstract, sometimes people say things out of ignorance of the particulars of a situation. That ignorance may be largely accidental–they just happen to have heard false information about a group and to have never been edified–or it may be more endemic to that person’s environment and outlook (because the person is a member of Group X and Group X historically has troubles with Group Y, the person neither tends to see nor seeks out information on Group Y’s point of view).
While either sort of ignorance may lead to beliefs and comments that could be deemed “racist” I prefer to call these things prejudice. Of course, no one wants to be called prejudiced either: but the thing is, the root meaning of that word simply points to a predisposition to judge–and one that relates particularly to ignorance. “Racist” opens a different can of worms because some racists are operating from a reflexive disdain for difference itself. Their eyes or their ears discern difference (of skin color, of religion, of sexual orientation), and they leap to demonize that difference. Such people are almost always ignorant about the differences they demonize as well, but there’s also something prior to and aside from their ignorance that is motivating their behavior.
Jews have strong historical reasons to feel persecuted by many others. Most growing up in the United States will tend to deal with enough gentiles to realize that Christians aren’t necessarily anti-semitic. So here knowledge triumphs over ignorance. American Jews have fewer opportunities to interact with Muslims, especially Arab Muslims. (Growing up where I did in the NYC burbs my image of Arabs was very distorted. It wasn’t until I was in college and after that I actually met a variety of South Asian and Arab people who were Muslims. Later I met a lot more by traveling abroad.)
All this by of saying that a lot of American Jews don’t have the chance to overcome their ignorance about Arabs, just as some American gentiles don’t have the chance to overcome their ignorance about Jews, and some American whites don’t have the chance to overcome their ignorance about blacks, and so on. All of this certainly amounts to a lot of prejudice: but I’d like to reserve the word racism for special cases of this phenomenon where the impulse to hate people for their differences goes much deeper.
I don’t think of you, London as a “racist” or, for that matter, as an “…ist” of any other pernicious variety. Still, your remark about the pro-Israeli lobby and the ownership of those news media was not very nuanced or informed. We all sometimes lapse into shorthand on these boards: calling things “rightwing” or “liberal” or, in this instance invoking a “pro-Israel lobby” as a way of communicating a certain kind of politics. No one wants every post to be a 800 words long (except maybe me 
).
I think when you made that comment you lapsed into shorthand. Knowing you from your posts, I think that’s much more likely than that you have a deep-seated ignorance on the matter, and, still less, that you’re racist or anti-semite.
Coldfire, isn’t there any way for a moderator or administrator to ask december, publicly or privately, to limit his OPs to about one/week. Wouldn’t that be a good way to send him a signal and to improve his contribution without going overboard? I understand that mods don’t want to get involved in policing the content of posts: but trolling can involve content rather than decorum, as you well know. Some of december’s recent OPs (and I don’t even read most of them) have, IMO, brought out the worst in him and in everyone else (including myself). His unfounded assertions about this or that (the BBC, the New York Times) and his perverse desire to compound his ignorance with more ignorance when he’s challenged, do suggest trolling rather than, say, a guy who knows less than he thinks. In other words, he’s doing it for the attention. I’m sure that’s not what the board wants. I’ve often found myself tempted to resort to–perhaps also succumbing to–conduct unbecoming when I lose patience with D. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Mandelstam - the fact that staff has openly discussed/admitted having had discussions re: decembers possible banning should be enough of a deterent. Sadly (since this isn’t the first time I recall seeing such an admission) it doesn’t appear to have a lasting effect.
I somehow suspect that the list of current long term posters who fall into the category “folks staffs’ discussed banning” is relatively short.