The only bigotry in London’s posts are in your head. He doesn’t “natter on about the Jew’s a bit”. I’ve never seen him discuss Judaeism. I’ve seen him discuss Pro-Israeli influence upon the U.S. media (and only at that to question its influence) never to outright proclaim a definite bias, or even hint that such a bias exists.
Isn’t that exactly what he’s doing here, pointing out bias and calling it “racism?” Has anyone called him a racist?
Jackmanii I was serious about the haven for terrorism comment. Now that someone has questioned it I’ll do a post about Abu Hamza and the Finsbury Park mosque in a bit, and you and others are certainly welcome to demolish the statement using facts and logic.
I have a feeling that L_C is no more a racist than I am, but what his views are with respect to Israel, and what the political climate is of his geographic location, play a role in what he says and does here.
The same Abu Hamza who has been stripped of UK citizenship?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2919291.stm
Please do try to use him as an example for how the UK tolerates anti-semitism.
Tee and others: what difference does it make if London_Calling is from London? Yes there have been anti-semitic episodes in England–especially of late. You will also find some anti-semitism in Brooklyn, New York. Probably there is somewhat more anti-semitism in Britain than in the US. Though that is surely regional: I’m willing to bet that there’s far less anti-semitism in London than there is in parts of the US South or Midwest. Outside of the United States the UK has one of the best records towards Jews of any country. (IIRC Britain has the world’s second or third largest population of Jews.) I’ve spent months at a time living in England and I have never felt more uncomfortable about my enthic/religious background there than here. It’s crazy to mark out Britain for institutionally tolerated anti-semitism and, IMO, irrelevant to this issue where LC comes from.
TwistofFate, since Gary is still chanting “na na na na na”, I’ll ask you to comment on one of the points he has repeatedly failed to address:
When a poster makes a claim that’s part of a standard repertoire of bigotry, refuses to document the claim or acknowledge any of the points refuting it, is he a bigot?
In this case, we have LC, obsessing in numerous threads about Jews “controlling” the American news media, and insinuating that coverage of Israel is warped by such individuals, all without any documentation of manipulation, or acknowledging numerous posters who’ve pointed out that media organizations he cites are not particularly pro-Israeli, not run by Jews etc.
**
Obviously you didn’t read the link I posted earlier, where LC first outed himself. He had a great deal to enlighten us on concerning Jews in American media, including this laundry list of gems:
and on and on ad nauseam.
TwistofFate, try googling on the search terms “Jews control media” (if you have the stomach for it), and see what pops up. Take a good look at the name of the site that leads the list. Look at some of the sickness that pervades numerous other links, and tell me that this is not part of a standard anti-Semitic parade of garbage.
In the thread where I first challenged LC on his insinuations in this regard, I gave him opportunities to provide specific evidence to show that he was making a reasonable argument rather than immediately labeling him a bigot. He’s placed that label on himself by continually parroting a bigoted line.
Making excuses for him won’t change his behavior.
You really are a pathetic piece of work aren’t you.
I have answered that statement time and again, but why stop now. There is nothing in that thread that supports your accusation of bigotry. He posted a question, provided his reasoning for it and showed ownership of relevant media. He then went on to state there was no conspiracy.
Yet still you try to smear with accusations of bigotry. What a contemptible little man you are.
I’m more than aware of what the Web can drag up from the dregs of warped individuals literature. I help out with the anti-fascist movement in Dublin, recently protesting against Jorg Haider speaking, taking down Anti-Immigration posters, removing racist grafitti, leafletting against fascists and far right politicians running for public office. I’m more than capable of identifying racism and anti-semiticism when it rears its ugly head.
I don’t see it in L_C’s posts, even the ones you point out. I think that your disagreement with L_C is so vehement that you really wish to see bigotry in his posts, when it just isn’t there.
This is beautiful, in an insane kind of way.
**Jack Klugman/mannii **– I had no interest in posting what I already understood to be the truth. Do you not remember - way back in that original thread - I posted that information at your specific prompting and for your information. It was the first time I’d come across you and you asked for the damn information which I had to dig it up from online. Because of your request !
And now you want to use what you asked me for specifically as the one and only example (out of 4,000 posts) of … whatever it is you’re trying to do ?
I only posted it because of this:
**Jack Klugman/mannii **– You began this stuff back then and you started it again in this thread (and several times in between). Dear God, how intellectually dishonest can you get, just how far are you prepared to go ……
Can I also just say that I really do appreciate the interventions on my behalf and posts in support but, really, it’s just giving the same nutter another straw to clutch on to – this is now the fifth time he’s re-cycled the same post (of mine).
Please, leaving him be.
I will come back to this thread out of respect for **Mandelstam ** and her posts, as well as in reply to IzzyR’s research efforts. Apologies to both. Mandelstam, I’ll get back to you later today, and IzzyR, while you’re keen to shoot the messenger rather than the message (see above for explanation of posting at Jack Klugman/mannii’s request) is at least doing his intellectual abilities some justice with a little research.
Does anyone remember when the old days when this thread was about december ? 
More later.
Why is it necessarily anti-semitic to claim (correctly or erroneously) that Jews control the media in the US?
If I were to claim that the UK media is controlled by middle-aged middle class white men, and even claim that that is a bad thing, does that make me anti-men? Inversely snobbish? Ageist? Anti-white?
I realise that of course - many anti semitic people DO claim the media is “controlled by Jews.” But that does not mean everyone who claims that is necessarily anti-semitic.
Many people whinge that lesbians or gays control much the BBC. Many of them are homophobic. But when I hear gay media colleagues whinge the same thing, I think - well - maybe they’re right, or they’re just wrong. Whatever’s behind their (probably wrong) opinion, it almost certainly isn’t politics or bigotry.
You are refering to that paragon who is now implying that stolen radioactive waste should count as the WMD “smoking gun” ? I’d like to know what purpose such transparently disingenuous posts can serve, besides sowing discord.
London_Calling, I did the research too and couldn’t find what you were talking about. Look, you’re the one that made the assertion that certain news orgs were “controlled by pro-Israeli interests”. Your evidence of this is that Sulzberger, Kann, and Graham are supposedly Jewish. The only evidence of “pro-Israeli”-ness I could find is that Sulzberger is Jewish, if that’s even a connection. Graham’s grandfather may have been Jewish but she is not. I couldn’t find any evidence that Kann is pro-Israeli or Jewish- and Googling “Peter Kann” and “Jewish” returns no real proof and a lot of ugly results, just like IzzyR’s link about Katherine Graham being Jewish. Aside from the fact that “controlled by Israeli interests” is dubious at best, being Jewish does not automatically equal being pro-Israeli, as myself and others have pointed out and you don’t acknowledge.
This thread was originally (and rightfully) started by Collunsbury because december started a thread making a stupid generalization about liberals/conservatives with no evidence to bolster it. You then make an (IMHO WRONG) assertion based on generalizations and incorrect info (and God knows what else cus you don’t provide any cites) and follow that up with an accusation that a mod wouldn’t be impartial discussing december because he’s Jewish/pro-Israeli. You also accuse december of being a racist/race hating bigot several times without evidence and when asked for evidence, you ignore it. In my book, calling someone a racist/anti/semite/bigot is a pretty serious accusation and you’d better provide some solid evidence before you tar someone like that. Instead you sidestep calls for cites, ignore evidence to the contrary, and continue to smear another poster with the same shit. Please put up or shut up.
For the record, I confess that I sometimes get exasperated by racist stereotyping and let sarcasm get the better of me. I consider that questions such as “How can we make Arabs like us?” or “Why is are Americans so arrogrant?” or “Why are the French so arrogant?” or “Why do Brits have a stick up their ass?” to all be based on stereotyping, assigning stereotypical characteristics to a group.
As such, they are in the same category as comments that blacks have natural rhythm or that Jews control the media or any similar racist stereotyping.
I find the assumption that I would allow my religious views or my political views to influence my decisions as a Moderator to be highly offensive. If I had done so, probably half of the posters posting in this thread would have been banned long ago.
No, they could be relatively benign Tinfoil Hats I suppose…I mean, why bother to make that claim. I really don’t think it has any place in a debate.
I said it was a haven of anti-Semitism, and it was puzzling. Change “haven” to beehive or wasp’s nest or something if the other word implies social acceptance. I’m referring to what is there, specifically in London, not what the average Brit thinks. And we can start with the actual people inciting other people to kill Jews, which qualifies as anti-Semitic IMO.
So you know about Abu Hamza already, that’s saves time…he’s still there preaching. There is Al-Muhajiroun, the “recruiters.” There’s el-Faisal, on trial now finally:
Jamaican-born, Saudi-educated, found preaching in…London? It’s crazy. Yes, there’s been a crackdown on them and that is significant, but this has also happened in NY I believe…some cleric made some outrageous call for jihad and the next thing you know, is fleeing the country in fear of his life. OK, everyone knows now: don’t pull that crap in New York. It doesn’t go over very well there.
Back to Abu Hamza, this from TIME Europe:
http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901030203-411393-3,00.html
(my bolding)
…take up religion indeed. But he has “supporters”. Big difference, or else he’d be gone too. So who are they, and what motive do they have for supporting him, is what I would like to know.
I understand why you and Collounsbury and some others thought the generalization in the cited blog was stupid. OTOH, the editors of the Wall Street Journal editors liked it well enough to publish it as part of their opinionjournal.com a couple of days ago. The WSJ’s support doesn’t make the article correct, but it ought to be at least worth debating.
Err… You understand, of course, that being included on an opinion page is not equivalent to any level of support from the publisher, correct? Not to take away from your accomplishment, but the publisher probably has a statement that they in no way endorse any of those opinions.
Actually I did see that the WSJ published it and figured you’d bring that up. For a newspaper that rails about how US college campuses are hotbeds of liberalism, you think they’d realize that’s where all the history professors are (yes, I know they didn’t write the article, but you think they’d see that as a flaw in the thesis). I agree with some of what the author said, but the article was a broad generalization and didn’t leave much for debate, and the fact that you left out the swipe at conservatives at the end left you wide open for claims of partisanship. Could it have been a decent debate? Maybe. but the fact is that your posting and debating history taints it in a way that no one wants to touch it.
It’s kinda funny to notice that people are less likely to attack you and more likely to cite you when you agree with a liberal position- “even december thinks this is true!” I think it’s because you have a higher burden-of-proof threshold for liberal arguments. I really think you should apply that standard to conservative arguments as well.
I’ve covered smarmy and bigoted with you before. But you are reaching new dimensions of being a pathetic twit.
First of all - I asked you (as you quoted) to expand on your insinuation that “owners” and “investors” of American media compel our politicians to support Israel, and that if you had a conspiracy theory to flesh out, go for it.
I did not ask you to spew out a huge list of dubious factoids generated from God knows where, about who in somebody’s opinion is both Jewish and has an important role in some media organization. You were told then, and know full well that such “information” does not support your claim in the slightest.
Next, to your argument that gee, poor London_Calling, out of 4,000 posts that were just chock full of love and understanding, made one misunderstood post, wherein he was dragged, nay bludgeoned into saying something by the Cabal™ that’s been totally misunderstood, and since then has been followed around and persecuted (sob!) by said Cabal™.
What a towering pile of bullshit.
You’ve since gone on to claim that all big-circulation U.S. newspapers are “in some manner” controlled by ‘pro-Israeli’ interests, and in case that code phrasing for “pro-Jewish interests” wasn’t clear enough, you link to a sleazy old diatribe by a deceased Senator about how the Jews control just about every durn thing under the sun.
You loved the quote so much, you couldn’t resist linking to it again.
You just can’t say enough about howJews run the media.
And again here you’ve trotted out your hot little list of publications that are controlled by The Nefarious Ones, only we’ll have to wait for evidence on this “control” until you come back from your weekend on Alpha Centauri.
One out of 4,000 posts, my ass.
You are one truly obsessed pigeon.
Far from persecuting poor widdle London_Calling, the only times I’ve called you on this crap have been on occasions when you’ve gone weeping and whinging into threads to complain about how nobody can complain about Israeli policy without being labeled an anti-Semite, or to repeat your unsubstantiated media garbage, or when you do something breathtakingly hypocritical like tear into somebody else for being a bigot or being “intellectually dishonest”.
What a truly pitiful shit you are.
For Gary, who can’t seem to answer questions, but hangs about spouting irrelevancies, has the above enlightened you any?
Ready to try simple questions, on a Yes or No only basis?
Do you agree that London_Calling has made claims that vast swaths of the American media are “controlled” by Jews?
The documentation is here and here. Yes or No?
Do you agree that the theme of “Jewish Media Control” has been a popular and dominant one among white supremacy groups like Stormfront and among anti-Semites in general for many years? Yes or No?
Do you agree that if anyone makes sweeping claims that Jews “control” the media, refuses to provide documentation, ignores refuting evidence, and continues to make the same claims in spite of knowledge that they are viewed as false and offensive, that that person is lending his support to a common strain of bigotry and should be viewed as a bigot? Yes or No?
No protestations, denials, changes of subject or name-calling.
Just Yes or No to those three questions, Gary.
Yes or No.
TwistofFate, feel free to answer those questions also.
Ah goody, the loaded yes/no question game. Bonus points for again repeating I don’t answer questions (despite all my answers to your questions in this thread). Let the game continue
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
I do love it when fuckwits play this game. I’m off to bed now, so I expect a shiny attempt at you trying to now imply question 3 applies to L_C by tomorrow morning. I’ll give extra effort points if you repeat your “won’t answer questions” line, and even more if you go yet another post without any of the quotes I’ve asked for. Work hard now.
I have no problem with people wanting to pursue this debate about London_Calling’s remarks on the media, but might I suggest the opening of a separate thread?
As squink’s post makes clear, december is still an object of concern and, faint though the hope might be, it’s just possible that this thread, which he must surely look at from time to time, will help him to see just how unwelcome his behavior is (fwiw). It would be just like december to see the controversy over London’s remarks as some kind of vindication of his own. And yet I doubt that’s true for anyone posting in this thread.
Thank you, Gary.
Of course I have demonstrated amply in this thread that point number three hits LC square on his pointy little noggin. If you can’t or won’t see that, there’s no convincing you.
You can go back to declaiming that you see no bigotry, so there cannot be bigotry, and that anyone who claims otherwise is offending you, the Privy Councilor of What Constitutes Ethnic Insult, and must be daft, if not positively criminal.
Whatever.
Mandelstam, since this particular digression has been going on for several pages now (and you have added your own comments to it as well), I think it’s just a bit late to ask that it be diverted to another thread.
december knows full well how he is viewed by many other posters, who’ve made that clear in scads of similar threads, in the Pit and elsewhere. Complain, write your Congressman, e-mail the Times, but don’t expect this or any other thread to wreak magic.