This is 100% in context with Omar’s statement. Your insistence that this has “nothing to do with Omar” is incorrect. Please don’t take my words out of context. Go read what I said again.
Your words were not taken out of context. It was a direct quote “Calling her antisemitic over her comments is a real snowflake moment.”
What gives you the right to tell me what impact her words have on me and call me a snowflake? Have you tried being Jewish in the 21st century? Maybe you should choose a better word next time.
So you are calling her antisemitic? Seriously, that’s what this discussion is. That’s what my comment was. Do you think she’s an antisemite? If not, then my comment has nothing to do with you.
Let’s have some clarification before this discussion gets even further off-track.
Antisemitism is real. It’s horrific and disgusting. Atrocities have been committed in its name, some of the worst large-scale crimes against humanity we’ve ever seen. And it’s on the rise, and in the US it is especially becoming popular among the alt-right. It’s nothing to take lightly. People are being killed today over it, synagogues and other places have been targets.
However, given the full context of everything in this thread, given Ilhan Omar’s follow-up to her statement, given everything she has expressed to and about the Jewish people as evidenced in this thread, if someone still insists that she’s an antisemite, I can only see that a person is seeking to be offended by her. The term snowflake in this context is a person who is easily offended. It has nothing to do with what Jewish people face regularly. It is specifically in the context of what is being discussed in this thread.
Again, trying to make a point by saying that a person has as much right to call her antisemitic as people who are upset over police violence against Black people is simply awful.
Please take your own advice.
This makes no sense. My objection is over you using the term snowflake. I’m done.
I think that’s the way the term “snowflake” is used. Telling people that they’re over-reacting to words that are not worthy of such a response. We all that that “right.” I tend not to excercise that right very often, because people react differently to different things, That’s all fine. And I agree we should be vigilent to call out anti-sematic comments when we hear them. But it seems like fair game to me to say, “Calling her antisemitic over her comments is a real snowflake moment.”
I, personally, have said much harsher things about AIPAC than “it’s all about the Benjamins.”
The pro-Israel lobby largely sat out of her race in 2022, but not in 2020.
Of course it isn’t. It’s entirely possible to say bigoted things out of ignorance. Happens all the time.
The person who’s not actually bigoted, when informed that they’ve said something that was, educates themselves about it, apologizes, and doesn’t say it again. That appears to be exactly what Omar did.
Except she didn’t say anything bigoted.
She’s a good person for apologizing. And smart to do so given her position. And if I say something that someone takes as offensive I will usually apologize (not always, but usually). But that doesn’t make what she said bigoted. It absolutely wasn’t.
If I say “Hello” and someone says “I’m a fundamentalist Christian and the word you said is bigoted against me because it includes ‘Hell’,” I might apologize depending on the circumstances. Even though it’s a ridiculous concept and not in any way bigoted. If it avoids conflict I might do it. It’s not worth fighting over.
I applaud her but give zero credence to the suggestion that what she said could reasonably be interpreted as bigoted.
You are in no way the sole determinant of that.
You do realize that you’ve declared several people in this thread, myself included, as well as everybody who made the fuss in the first place, and as well as the people Omar herself believed when she educated herself on the subject, to be unreasonable?
That’s a pretty unreasonable thing to say.
The position being made is that it is bigoted to point out the massive amount of money that was spent by an Israeli lobbying group because antisemites spread conspiracy theories about how Jewish people control banks, and there are stereotypes around that.
Facts aren’t bigoted. Saying that a person is unable to point out those facts is unreasonable.
There is a hateful stereotype about young Black men being dangerous criminals. It’s horrible. But if there was a young Black man who has committed violent crimes, it’s not being bigoted to point that out if you are asked why he was put in prison. And if anyone insists otherwise, I reject their assertion.
Just because facts steer close to something that is a hurtful stereotype, that doesn’t mean that you are muzzled from talking about those facts. That’s ridiculous. And the claim that nobody but the affected group is able to make such a determination is also ridiculous.
ETA: I recognize that the bolded part isn’t something you yourself have advanced, that was a general statement not directed at you.
That is not the position being made. The position being made is that the particular wording Omar used to say that a specific lobbying group was spending a lot of money in an attempt to influence Congress, and she thought it was working, sounded like an antiSemitic trope. There is other language she could have used that would have made the point without doing that.
What about the particular warning was the problem?
ETA: Going back, I do understand the “hypnotism” tweet from 2012 being badly worded. That’s not the part that we’ve been discussing (or at least I haven’t been talking about that) but there is a stereotype of Jewish people having evil mystical powers and I can understand criticizing that. It’s not like Israel is literally hypnotizing people either.
[presumably “wording” not “warning”]
Has been explained. Please read the thread.
So you don’t have anything specific other the fact that you can’t mention money and Israel. Okay.
Guess you haven’t read the thread.
I’m reminded of a diversity training session I attended many years ago in one job. A key idea from that seminar: “It isn’t the speaker that determines whether a statement is offensive. It’s the listener.”
You can, but you need to be very specific about the particular behavior that you’re criticizing. The more you resort to vague generalities, the more you sound like an antisemitic trope.
I happen to be a liberal of Jewish descent who agrees with Ilhan Omar about a whole lot of things, and I also agree that as a Muslim woman, she’s on the receiving end of orders of magnitude more nasty bigotry than most of her detractors ever are. But even I pulled a wry face when I read her quoted remarks along the lines of
Nah, that’s inappropriate coming from a political leader, especially one who is not Jewish herself.
It is perfectly feasible for such a political leader to make specific criticisms about Israel and money, as I did in my previous post. Along the lines of “Advocacy organizations that analysts like Mearsheimer and Walt have described as the ‘Israel lobby’, along with political leaders of the Israeli right-wing, pressure US Jews to identify their interests as Jews with the Israeli right-wing’s objectives”, and so on and so forth. Stick to concrete descriptions of the particular acts you’re criticizing, rather than vague generalities that sound more reminiscent of antisemitic broadbrushing.
I think you’re suggesting a much higher standard for Rep. Omar (and discussions of Israel) than the rest of Congress follows on every other issue.
I am also a liberal of “Jew-ish” descent (my father was Jewish). I think there was a song abut “it’s all about the Benjamins.” It’s short hand for money I guess. AIPAC (and other organizations) use money like all other lobbying groups. Using vague generalizations that are not overtly anti-Semitic seems fine with me and what everyone does. It’s far short of saying something like "Jewish bankers run the new world order " or whatever the hell the anti-Semites allege.
It is, specifically 100 dollar bills which have a picture of Benjamin Franklin on them.
AIPAC is a lobbying group. Lobbyists give donations to politicians that support whatever they’re lobbying for. How specific does a politician need to be when talking about a lobbyist and money?!
If you put it in context that it’s about lobbyists, your example of being more specific is redundant.
Here’s an AP article that illustrates why I can’t see this as anything but absurd.
https://apnews.com/article/5640084a8f5db4875983b1fb09549ca3
Many understood the tweet as suggesting that Republicans are influenced and financed by pro-Israel groups. They saw it promoting an anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people try to control politics with money.
But they are! The first sentence at least is true. That’s what lobbyists do. The second sentence doesn’t follow from the first. I would hope that pro-Israel groups don’t represent all Jewish people.
Again, I’m flabbergasted by this controversy. I think Omar responded appropriately but I really, really think there would have been no controversy if the comment had come from someone else. If there’s bigotry, that’s it.