December: Blog Spotter Extraordinaire & Tireless Informer on Sins of Liberals, etc

The BBQ Pit
321

Your citizenship does not automatically grant you enlightenment, unfortunately. One would expect a little greater sensitivity here than you’ve demonstrated.
**

And I could launch a conspiracy bandwagon by arguing that Christian and/or Muslim ownership of US media companies and foreign media organizations “might influence” policy regarding Israel. But I do not. If I have something to say about the fairness of some article or pattern of coverage I address myself to the facts and opinion as presented. I do not make leering insinuations based on the religious orientation of someone back in the executive office.

If anything, the fact that LL cribbed his notes from a white supremacist-type website should fucking reinforce for you the extent to which this line of thinking is closely allied with bigoted movements. This would compel any fair-minded person to beware of sweeping judgments on this score and to show great caution and respect for facts when making any argument that ties into the fact or allegation of a Jewish person’s connection with a news media organization.

Mandelstam said something worth repeating:

“But please consider for yourself how offensive it feels to Jews when people start to look at complex social problems–and I’ve named several above–and then spot a pattern of this or that powerful Jew.”

Exactly. LL knows full well after many reminders over the course of years how offensive his insinuations are. That he intends to continue them demonstrates convincingly how little he cares about the effect his bigotry has on others.

wring, if you’re suggesting that an unchecked listing of facts from a socialist website is about as likely to be correct as a list of “facts” from a white supremacist website, I think you might have some explaining to do to our socialist friends on the SDMB. :slight_smile:

Coldfire, when London_Larouche posts something acknowledging his mistakes and offensive behavior, something even remotely approaching an apology, then I will think about “chilling the fuck out”.

On preview, Izzy has given you a lot more to think about. And I hope you will.

322

IzzyR, the mindset you describe exists, unfortunately. The question is: does L_C have that mindset? It is my opinion he does not: you obviously beg to differ.

Jack: It’s not about my lack of sensitivity. The main difference here is that you seem to see the fact that L_C used material from an anti-Semitic website as absolute proof that he, too, is an anti-Semite. Had he copied neo-Nazi propaganda rather than facts, I would have agreed with you. Thing is, he copied facts (and yes, one or two of those claims have been debunked: but the others stand as facts): it is my opinion that a quick Google action got him these hits, and he went along with them. Bad call? Yes, I think so. Anti-Semite? Surely not.

323

not at all. simply that if the specific data (ie not spin) is correct, you shouldn’t necessarily hold it against the person that they linked to an objectionable cite.

Here’s the line to me:

  1. Owners of large media outlets largely have racial/ethnic/religious factor A in common. This is a piece of data, that can be investigated and either found to be essentially true or not. linking to a cite that’s objectionable/questionable etc to demonstrate the objective data is not optimum, but if the essential data is true, it can be shrugged off as an accident.

  2. Extrapolations/assumptions of what that means WRT content of the media, and by extension public policy = Spin of the ilk that carney rides boast of. linking to a ‘suspect’ or objectionable or laughable cite to demonstrate this should result in the poster being laughed into the pit.

the best example of what I’m trying to get at happened in a GQ thread, the question was “do blacks commit more crimes than whites”. and handy said something about 'according to the FBI some statements in support of that, but was really a spin on the data from the FBI, posted on a White Supremist cite (example - they took the data about racial characteristics of victims/perps of violent crimes then generated ‘% more likely’ kinds of things like “whites are 85% more likely to be assaulted by blacks than whites” , which ignores types of assaults, relative percentages etc, that would give a more accurate assesment of the situation).

So - the actual linking to that cite isn’t all by itself, in my eyes a specific problem unless there’s additional objectionable stuff to substantiate an actual position linking.

The question of ‘if owners of media are largely Jewish, does this explain, help to explain etc the more pro-Isarael stance of the US admins in general’ is a debatable point. I don’t think he’s got a lot to stand on to assume that, and I agree that the position itself is one that those bigoted against Jews would hold. But it is also possible that some one can believe that, yet not be a bigot. (for example, there’s lots of people who believe that ‘blacks are more likely to commit crimes than whites’, and many folks who hold that view are, in fact, racist asses, but there’s also folks who believe that simply 'cause there’s proportionately more blacks in prison than other groups)

clear as mud, now, right?

324

dammit, or what Coldy said.

325

Jack, I can’t believe how pig headed you can actually be.

L_C has pointed out his reasoning for posting that information, and is perfectly happy to accept if the information in it is wrong, and why it is wrong. He has stated this several times.

Your comment to wring indicates that you have no reading comprehention whatsoever.
Wring once got true information from a website that was socialist. Wring normally wouldnt take the information at face value if the origins of the information were known beforehand. It is a normal reaction. It’s the same reaction I have to a december post.
Or are you just happy to continually scream “BIGOT”?

326

Coldfire.

Reading (not skimming) this lengthy thread will surely demonstrate to you that I was referring to LL as a bigot before Izzy’s demonstrating of his plagiarizing a racist website. That revelation was merely the icing on the cake.**

Oh really? Please steer us to any reliable source that agrees with the rest of that stuff “standing as facts”. A laundry list of allegations of religious affiliation, without any references, embraced by white supremacist websites, part of which already has been debunked as false, and you’re willing to swallow the rest as fact?

Surely not.

And would any of it mean that the media organizations in question are “controlled” and their output dictated by Jews, to the end of whipping American politicans into line, as claimed by our charming Britisher (to the plaudits of every anti-Semitic and Israel-obsessed whacko who’s ever paraded through the SDMB (portajon, SweetWilly, naxox2002, all the rest of you, stand up and take your bows).

Nope.

But in the LL lexicon, if you haven’t got facts, keep on spewing the insinuations and challenge others to prove you wrong. That must have become the SDMB way while I wasn’t looking.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck (“Jews control the media! Quack! Quack!”), despite every opportunity given it to metamorphose into a swan, then it is eminently reasonable to conclude that it is a duck.

wring, to repeat, if you’re going to make an allegation that invites hostility upon an entire ethnic group, you have a major obligation to be rigorous in your proofs, not copy a long list of junk whose bona fides you have no idea of, from a nest of racists. That says volumes about one’s intentions.

TwistofFate, I can’t believe you can even see to type, seeing as how deeply your head continues to be stuck in the sand. You and Gary could be in great demand at meetings of ethnic organizations in which you tell the minorities to shut the fuck up and not be so damn sensitive.

Open that mind and let a little light in.

327

L_C, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you’re telling the truth about googling that source. Can you pleasde provide any other source for your assertion that Jewish ownership dictates editorial policy on Israel or withdraw it? And while december’s list of faults is long, I don’t think he’s a racist and wish that you would not constantly repeat it without making a better case as it’s a really ugly accusation.

Jack, I think you do need to take a step back right now- I don’t think your approach is helping at all.

328

He never said that Jews “control the media”. As much as you would love for him to have said that, he hasn’t. He did ask a question about ownership of media outlets having an influence on reporting in one very specific area, the current situation in Israel/Palestine.

advice you could very well do with taking yourself.

329

Twist, you seem fixated on the idea that by “shooting the messenger” (which you seem to thinks consists entirely of me, never mind Izzy and others), the whole ugly situation will go away, and you can go back to happy virtual pub-crawling with LL.

Hell, I’m not stopping you. Have at it all you like, if you don’t mind the stench.

Only LL can rehabilitate himself. He’s made absolutely zero effort to do so.
Mojo, it’s true I can be rather vociferous in dealing with bigotry. I am not very tolerant of it, especially when it is repeated, coy, sniggering and deceitful. If the author of it in this case can make a sincere attempt at an apology, or if his apologists can cease making flimsy excuses for him, I’m more than happy to let this rest for now.

330

At least Izzy and others are prepared to discuss L_C’s actual question, as opposed to your version of “shooting the messenger” namely insisting he is a bigot because he is asking the same question that a white supremacist would ask.

L_C is a big boy, he doesn’t need me to defend his points for him. I’m simply asking you to actually look at what he is trying to discuss, rather than simply labelling him a bigot constantly. I KNOW he’s not a bigot, and it has nothing to do with “virtual pubcrawling”, and I resent the implication that I am incapable of making my own mind up. I don’t necessarily hold the view that he is correct because I like the guy. He is capable of defending his own points.

My dog in this fight is your inability to separate the message from the messenger.

Would you be screaming bigot at L_C if he got the information from a webpage that a jewish schoolkid did on “Jews in journalism and the media”?

331

From the Washington Report

That from an anti-Israel site. From a Jewish source

332

good work Izzy.

333

Is this actually being posed as a serious question? (Somehow, I get this image transposed from a Sean Connery James Bond movie, where instead of karate-kicking Japanese schoolgirls, a class full of “jewish schoolkids” at recess routs a yard full of skinheads). :stuck_out_tongue:

Seriously, this is the last occasion on which I plan to respond to pointless apologisms for LL, barring some stunning revelation, photos of LL smooching Jewish babies etc.

My last word to you, again from the movies - this time Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade:

Aged knight: "You have chosen… poorly."

334

Jack - My position is “unproven”. I don’t recall much interaction w/LC (and before you go doing any more research Izzy - There’s really a short list of folks that I remember here. So, even if you find a thread from a year ago where I had some long drawn out thing w/him, I swear, I don’t recall having had any real interaction w/him. Some day, I’ll give you a list of folks I remember.)

anyhow, if the position is :

A. He linked to that vile website (and/or used info from it) a while back.
and

B. He believes that 1. much media in the US is owned mainly by folks who seem to be of Jewish heritage and 2.that info is significant in determining why the US is so pro Israel,

then I remain at “suspicious, but unproven”.

or in the parlance of duck/quakery:

If it stumbled once like a duck and has a harsh voice, it may be a duck, but it might be a drunken Mae West.

335

Oh fuck off Jack, you sanctimonious prick.

336

**IzzyR **:
"By presenting the facts without attribution, you presented them in the guise of stuff that you personally had researched. …

But Izzy, didn’t L_C post a strong proviso just prior to citing these facts? And, if so, in retrospect, can you see that that may have been his way of letting people know that he wasn’t 100% sure that his info was reliable?

[after my having pointed out that neither Fox News nor CNN is, AFAIK, owned by Jews.]
"Good point of course, if you are interested in good points…

:confused: Is there anything that suggests to you that I am not interested in good points?
“But the standard response to this is that there are Jews who control all these companies as well.”

That may well be Izzy, but I don’t expect that we’re in danger of finding “the standard response” in this debate since I strongly believe that L_C isn’t an anti-semite.

"See here’s how it works, in the minds of many soft-core anti-Semites. …

I do appreciate your taking the time to explain these things in this debate. But I do wonder why these remarks are, or at least seem to be, addressed to me. What makes you assume, in other words, that you know or care more about anti-semitism than I do? Do you think because I am, perhaps, more secular than you, and because my politics are left of yours that I am more insulated from or innocent of anti-semitism than you?

“(You would never believe who turns out to be Jewish on these websites - John Wilkes Booth, Lenin, Michael Skakel - name a Bad Guy and he’s Jewish).”

Actually, I would have no problem believing it. Many years ago I heard a lecture given my an Argentine Jew and leftist who was taken as a political prisoner and tortured. He was asked to reveal information about the Jewish plot–including how Frank Roosevelt was really a Jew named Rosenberg.

They are honorable but guileless Gentiles, who don’t realize that the devious Jews are advising them to act against their own interests. "

Yes, it’s all very disturbing and downright pathetic.

“Frankly, I think the accusations against Dex fit perfectly into the mindset that I described above. As do references to my own “brotherly solidarity”.”

I don’t feel prepared to debate that point since I’m not familiar with Dex’s posts–only december’s. All I can say is that you won’t find me exonerating anti-semitism: not on these boards, and not in RL. But I also feel that given their history Jews should feel a sense of solidarity with other people who have been or are experiencing oppression. And I believe that the condition of the Palestinian people in Israel is unjust and oppressive; and although there is blame on both sides, I believe that the cycle of violence has been worsened by Sharon’s hardcore policies; and I believe that most Americans, including American Jews, have less knowledge about this situation than they should; and I agree with L_C that in Europe (or at least the parts of Europe that I know) the coverage of the Israel/Palestine conflict is more detailed. But as I said above, I do not believe that the reason for that is to do with who owns a particular newspaper.

“My position is that the evidence for Jewish control and for actual influence is so weak that a person who persists in believing it is most likely of the mindset described above.”

I agree with you but with an emphasis on persists in believing it, after having thought it through.

"BTW, Mandelstam, you are making a mistake in constantly referring to the war in Iraq as a Jewish issue…

Actually, you must have missed or skimmed one of my earlier posts. I specifically said that most American Jews don’t connect war in Iraq with Israel in a strong way; and that in the Times’s editorials on the subject, Israel had hardly come up. OTOH some Jewish neocons do make the connection and since Bush consorts with neocons, both Jewish and non-Jewish, that’s what brought the subject of Iraq into this debate in this way.

So we are in agreement over more than a few things (for a change :wink: ).

337

Are you really concerned about all people who are experiencing oppression, or just about those who are being oppressed *by Westerners? * Yes, the Palestinian people are oppressed. They are oppressed not only by Israel, but by their own corrupt government. The Iraqis were totally enslaved by Saddam’s facistic government. Also, the Syrian people are oppressed by their Baath Party government. The Sudanese Christians are far more oppressed by the Sudanese Muslims than are the Palestinians. Those who do not convert to the Muslim faith are being systematically murdered and entire families are being sold into slavery in this nation. There are over 100,000 slaves currently in Sudan at the present time and approximately 2,000,000 people have been murdered by the Sudanese government. The Zimbabweans are being starved to death by their government. Thousands are dying.

Mandelstam, your concern for oppressed people seems to depend more on who is oppressing them than on how badly oppressed they are.

338

“Mandelstam, your concern for oppressed people seems to depend more on who is oppressing them than on how badly oppressed they are.”

:confused:

december, what makes you think you are an expert on my concern for the oppressed. Do you know what charities I subscribe to? What petitions I sign? What books I read? What lectures I attend?

What evidence do you have that because I feel concern for Palestinian injustice that I don’t feel concern for starving Zimbabweans–or starving Angolans and Ethiopians for that matter? Do you think concern for oppression is a zero sum game? Palestinian injustice is pertinent to this thread; African injustices are not.

As usual you turn everything into a partisan squabble.

339

How is signing petitions and attending lectures going to help ANY oppressed people, be they Palestinian, Jewish, or African?

Do you Ivory Tower much?

I’ve noticed the Taliban haven’t been doing much oppressing lately, nor has the Saddam Regime, which has been reduced to a deck of playing cards.

Oh, but you read books and attend lectures! Well then, Bully for you! Carry on!

340

"But Izzy, didn’t L_C post a strong proviso just prior to citing these facts? And, if so, in retrospect, can you see that that may have been his way of letting people know that he wasn’t 100% sure that his info was reliable?"
Uh-huh. “Strong proviso”. More like “Feel free to try and find errors”.

Having just pilfered a bunch of stuff from SkinheadsRUs, one would have to be fully aware that there’s a strong probability that it’s of dubious reliability. Launching it onto a public message board with the knowledge that it was written with the goal of promoting hatred toward Jews smacks of malevolent recklessness.

And does any concern for its truth linger today? Has LL been back to acknowledge in the slightest the refutations of claims of Jewish ownership of the N.Y. Times and Washington Post? No.

Far from being concerned about the accuracy of his diatribes, LL ils only interested in flinging gobs of mud to see what might stick.
Mandelstam, in her efforts to rescue LL’s sunken ship, salted her remarks with some interesting statements, apparently designed to leave a broad hint about her disapproval of LL’s obsessions. For instance:

“…please consider for yourself how offensive it feels to Jews when people start to look at complex social problems–and I’ve named several above–and then spot a pattern of this or that powerful Jew.”

Reading that, someone with good decent instincts would realize he had a golden opportunity to respond, with something on the order of: “Mandelstam, I never intended that my statements would offend you or cause you pain. If I unintentionally did so, I apologize.”

But he did not - another glaring example of his insensitivity. He doesn’t care who he hurts.