Well, maybe I do. Maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But the notion that Trump could describe the ‘Unite the Right’ marchers as merely ‘Some people doing something’ - in any context - without getting an absolute ton of shit for it is something I just can’t crowbar my mind open wide enough to accommodate. Hell, Trump couldn’t even describe MS-13 as animals without catching some shit, and they’re a bunch of killers and sex traffickers.
Animal lovers were especially offended by the comparison.
Right wingers offer “thoughts and prayers” for tragedies like Sandy Hook, and they think it means something, even in full context.
I generally have a low regard for Omar, but it is crystal clear that the point of her comments was how so many Americans are using a tragedy to carry out a campaign of hatred against all Muslims. The mass-murder was obscene, and the acceleration of racism is also obscene.
But strangely, so many white people are taking such great umbrage to a not-well-thought-out reference to the former, that they don’t have one second to think about the latter.
How many people are shocked by that? I mean, using any excuse whatsoever to turn the dialogue so that we can’t discuss bald-faced racism? This must be the first time in American history anything like that has happened, so I’m gobsmacked.
I may be wrong but I’m not absurdly wrong. Only Omar knows why she used those precise words. Neither you nor I can read her mind. However, she is a politician. I gave her the same motivation as the average politician. In a speech about the repercussion of 9/11 on the US Muslim community she did not dwell on the death, carnage and destruction of the event; nor did she dwell on the terrorist events in the West since 9/11. I wouldn’t expect anything different from a politician railing against the excesses of the security services(specifically against Muslims)since the event. However, I don’t expect the event to be described merely as ‘some people doing something’.
I am as good as certain Omar would never describe the recent act of terrorism against Muslims last month as ‘that thing that somebody did in New Zealand’. She would NEVER be so flippant about that event.
I know very little about Omar but I’m prepared to wager that she could be both drunk and concussed yet still more articulate than Trump.
…“somebody did something” would be the perfect way to describe what happened here. That wouldn’t be flippant. We don’t even speak his name here. He’s just somebody. And he did something. I couldn’t imagine a better way to describe him. In fact I’m going to say it.
“Somebody did something in Christchurch.”
Do I deserve to be attacked for that?
In the wake of what happened in Christchurch most of us realized that we had been ignoring the degree anti-Muslim sentiment has infested society. Why the fuck would we find this offensive? Why the fuck would she not say that? Why the fuck would we not stand beside her, in solidarity?
And if she did say that, do you think New Zealanders would react by attacking her? By making videos quoting her out of context, cut with footage from the attacks? Can you imagine that?
I couldn’t. I can’t. We wouldn’t let that happen.
So do you know what actually is flippant?
You invoking Christchurch as an excuse to attack Omar. What you just did. In context it was perfectly fucking clear what she meant. And in context it is perfectly clear what **you **have done.
I can’t believe you just said what you did. And if you actually had the courage of your convictions you would be apologizing for what you said.
…sorry for the double post, but I’m just trying to imagine Jacinda Ardern reacting in the same way that Donald Trump has done in response to “somebody saying something.”
Or trying to imagine an orchestrated hate-campaign against a single woman based on misinformation and propaganda happening here. We wouldn’t allow it to happen.
Its inconceivable.
How can anyone, in good conscience, defend these attacks on Omar?
Omar’s quote was just a case of human nature: People naturally place greater weight on atrocities that affect their side but less weight on atrocities that affect others. This doesn’t make Omar a bad person - it’s just human nature.
So yes, she would probably take great offense if someone brushed off the New Zealand attack as “someone did something” - but that’s how most people would react in a my-group-vs-other-groups scenario. Nobody cares about all things equally; nobody is truly objective or unbiased.
“Some people did something” is the setup statement. “All of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties” is the follow through, the punch line, if you like (perhaps the “payoff” is a more apt description).
A reasonably attentive read of the two statements should lead one to the conclusion that, while the payoff line doesn’t require a setup in order to be a coherent statement, a setup without a payoff is usually meaningless babbling.
Leaving aside the laughable implausibility of tne America-hating fuckstick eschewing an opportunity to babble meaninglessly, your hypothetical has us hounding him for a thousand years over just a setup. I trust that was not your intention.
So, in your hypothetical, what payoff line did you intend to propose?
I think at least some people are capable of considering-and giving appropriate respective weight to that consideration-of both the overall point and thrust of her remarks AND her harshly insensitive words referencing one of the worst tragedies in our nation’s history.
Just because she was discussing an admirable and worthy issue (one in which I fully support the substance of her arguments) does not mean that she did not also make what at the very least can be called a flippant, careless remark re an event that still evokes strong emotional reactions from many Americans (and not just white people).
All that being said, the rightwing attacks on her over this are not valid. They are simply using this incident as an exploitable opportunity to hatefully smear a Muslim woman in Congress.
It’s interesting how white Christian America has abused non-whites and non-Christians over the centuries and yet demands that they act nothing less than grateful. If it were just a matter of indignation, if the message from the rabid right were simply “Be grateful you live here” and nothing else, that would be bad enough, but not ominous. I suspect, however, that the implied message goes one step further: “Be grateful you live here, because we can always kick your kind out any damn time we feel like it.”
Connect the dots: it’s not just Muslims, but also Hispanic Americans. There is a campaign against diversity in America, against an inclusive and democratic society.
And people are naive if they think it ends there. I seriously doubt it does.
I dont disagree at all.
Bullshit: it’s not a brushoff, no matter how assiduously you’re trying to frame it that way.
What it is is a very specific comparison between some people doing a particular thing—and that’s in no way downplaying, brushing off or minimizing the fact that they were very evil people doing a massive very evil thing—and the consequence of all people in a much broader racial/religious category being attacked in retaliation for that thing.
It’s not that hard to understand, if you don’t start out with the predetermined goal of trying to make Omar look bad or callous or as though she’s taking the “side” of Muslims “against” victims of the 9/11 bombing.
“…Some people did something…”, “…Grab them by the p___y…” both come from the same ignore the context to make a point play book.
What?
See, the context is that Omar never committed a terrorist attack, and Trump has sexually assaulted at least a handful of women, so when Omar talks about something she has no responsibility for it is EXACTLY the same as Trump talking about the horrible things he’s done.
Allegedly. Keep in mind, we really only have his word on that.
Excuse me, what the fuck? Their side?