All else being equal, Trump as president is probably able to get more done (and thus cause more harm) than Fuentes as president would be able to.
On the other hand if you didn’t just replace Trump with Fuentes but also replaced all the Trump supporters with Fuentes supporters then yes he’s obviously be far worse if was able to wield the same amount of political power as Trump.
I just posted in the other thread about how I’m seeing an alarming increase in left-wing anti-Semitism online…
And here you and I (along with many others of this thread) would disagree. I may be not be sure about the word “genocide” but calling actions in Gaza and on the West Bank “terrorism” I have no problem with.
But actually, rather than getting lost in the weeds of a hypothetical Fuentes vs Trump presidency, I find this much more interesting:
Bibi, for all his faults, is in the Trump camp of your analogy. Sinwar meanwhile makes (well, made) Fuentes and David Duke look like respectable, progressive, egalitarian gentlemen.
So by your comparison, isn’t that a perfectly valid reason to find praise of Sinwar much, much more odious?
Can you point to any case where I have argued that this sort of second-hand evidence is not just reason to doubt the sincerity of someone’s publicly expressed beliefs, but conclusive proof that they are lying about those beliefs?
But not from Macklemore? You don’t think he (and the discourse around him) are examples of that?
You’re asking whether I think Sinwar’s ideology was more evil than Netanyahu’s? Yes.
You can call it whatever you like, it doesn’t change the reality, which is that Hamas and their allies intentionally slaughter civilians while Israel does not.
But not evil enough that you think that groups that praise and lionize him are evil?
Yes, groups that consistently praise and lionize him are evil. If the members of the Columbia group generally endorse the statement you quoted, they, and by extension, the organization, are evil.
If, on the other hand, it is a typical activist organization in which the rank and file members don’t know or care what statements the “leadership” is putting out, I would be inclined to accept a member’s claim that such statements don’t reflect his or her beliefs. DSA is a great example of a leftist organization whose “leadership” often says dumb things that don’t reflect the views of most members, particularly those members who are actually getting elected to public office rather than to DSA committees.
I think that available evidence suggests that Macklemore was punished for saying things that fall well within the boundaries of acceptable discourse, and I think that is bad. I’m really not interested in having a detailed discussion about whether other things he has said or done in the past are unacceptable, because I don’t care. If I concluded he was an anti-Semite, all that would mean is that it would cause me to not buy his music, which I already don’t do.
Yah, that is deeply stupid. But AFAICT, the content and official video of Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop” has nothing whatever to do with antisemitic stereotypes.
(Unless one’s somehow reading into it an association with the 19th-century stock figure of the Jewish “old clothes man” or secondhand peddler, but AFAICT that particular stereotype has been pretty much extinct for over a hundred years. Recent/current stereotypes of Jews relating to the clothing business are more along the lines of hard-hustling businessmen in the cutthroat world of fashion and garment-manufacturing industries, like Harry Bogen in I Can Get It for You Wholesale. Harry Bogen does not do thrift shops.)
Honestly arguable at this point. In any case if I was on the ground in Gaza, the distinction between intent to kill me and my family vs complete disregard to our deaths wouldn’t matter much. If my family was on the ground there it wouldn’t matter much.
There are plenty of pro Palestinian citizens out there encouraging others to support Macklemore financially, either as a show of support for his cause or to balance out being dropped, or to platform him more heavily. In that sense, I do think there’s larger relevance.
If a member supports a group with heinous beliefs does it matter whether or not they hold those heinous beliefs in their heart of hearts? How could I ever know whether they do or don’t, unless they go ahead and denounce those beliefs?
From my perspective, someone who is a member of such a group is either a raging antisemite, or completely indistinguishable from one.
They certainly say a lot of dumb things, but they also cross the line from dumb to evil at times.
Don’t they? How do you know? And if they’re supporting the group that says this stuff, what difference does it make whether or not they personally support everything the group says? They’re still supporting the group in getting those goals done.
It’s a lot like when MAGA Republicans tell us, “well, I don’t like everything that Trump does…”
Again, you are far more eager than I am to be charitable towards people who support groups whose stated views are fundamentally illiberal. Imagine talking this way about Trump supporters?
Ha ha ha. Like this lie is going to still fly after NAZA.
It is not surprising in any way that you would fall (or, more likely, claim to fall) for such idiotic and blatant propaganda. I just saw an interview on the Israeli news with the director of NAZA where he admitted that he did not in fact verify and of the farfetched claims he made in the movie. But of course, people like you don’t need any evidence.
Even ignoring all the accounts of IDF mass murders, the Israeli government knowingly put incompetent MAGA clowns in charge of feeding starving civilians. You’ve admitted this openly! That’s “intentionally slaughtering civilians” just as much as gunning them down.
Well, Trump is a bad example because he’s turned his party into a fascist personality cult. But back in the Before Times, I would indeed regularly mock people who assumed that a political party’s official platform was a reliable guide to what they would actually do if they took office. The people who end up on platform committees tend to be a lot more ideologically committed than the people who actually run for office are, and have absolutely no effective control over what those people will do if elected.
For others reading this thread, I watched this interview and you might be shocked that this is not exactly an accurate representation of what was said.