Just out of curiosity, is changing my posting name into a minor comic book villian’s name supposed t be some kind of an insult? Cause if so, you really got to be more bat over the head for me to get it. I’m kinda dense that way.
Anyway, thank you for providing the illustration. Others are free to discuss.
No, I thought it was your name. Didnt go back up the thread to check, sorry if I offended you by this, but I used to be a comic geek, so no insult there. But I thank you dear lord for alleviating me of the charge to answer your pôst. I will now go to the shitpile that your dismissal clearly proves as being my home.
I am pleased that the topic of Charles Murray and The Bell Curve did not come up. This is not because I disagree with The Bell Curve, but because I agree.
As more is learned about genetics it becomes apparent that more is determined by genetics. Unfortunately, it is still somewhat dangerous to discuss the relationship between genes, IQ, success in life, crime, and race.
I have rarely read an effort to refute The Bell Curve that did not read like a Fundamentalist tirade against Charles Darwin - who certainly would have agreed with Charles Murray. When I read a presumed refutation of The Bell Curve that even mentions the word “racist” I assume the author has nothing substantitive to say.
I actually thought that Zombie was posting facts and there’d been a poster in the thread named DarkSeid who posted that.
Whoops.
How is my post in any way “disingenuous”?
You quote him as saying:
Then you say:
Then I say:
In what lies the dishonesty? Removing the qualifying “foreign policy” and “possible”? The meaning is not substantively changed. In any event, I was obviously paraphrasing his post, immediately above.
Methinks you are seeing persecution where none was intended.
I am not seeing persecution, nor do I feel persecuted. I am seeing idle people thinking an inquisitor uniform would greatly reinforce their arguments.
Yes, “possible” and “foreign” do change a lot, and that was precisely my point there as well. DSeid (happy now?) uses a lot of oratory precautions in his first question, and after an answer is delivered, pulls the rug underneath and you got a very bare question “are Jews disloyal citizens?”. Keeping my answer while changing the question is disigenuous to say the least. I’m not that familiar with DSeid (hence me fumbling up his name), so I have no idea if he did it voluntarily or not.
But diverging loyalties have not been invented by Jews or the birth of Israel. I wouldnt have trusted Americans of German origins in the US foreign service neither in the build up to WW2. Doesnt mean there’s a license to round them all up and put them in camps like what happened to the American Japanese.
The race and racist cards are part of a more general trend in society to try to gain power and never admit fault rather than having an honest dialogue.
Since I’m familiar with Andrew’s work and saw him couple of times on various talk shows including Real Time w/BM I was kind of surprised by this assessment.
Sure enough, even the quick glance at people who can “read” Andrew Sullivan Is Not an Anti-Semite | The New Republic or Leon Wieseltier, Andrew Sullivan and Anti-Semitism - The Atlantic demonstrates that your cited assertion is wrong.
In other words, he was accused of anti-Semitism and his fit as you call it, was more than justified.
Ah the “playing the race card” card.
If you don’t wish to comminicate the idea you are being persecuted, perhaps referencing the “inquisition” or “commisars” isn’t working well for you.
I disagree. The notion that Jews ‘may possibly’ be disloyal where in some position of power over foreign policy isn’t really any different from that Jews are of “questionable loyalty”.
You accused me of being “disingenuous”, not DSeid.
What, Americans of German origin … guys like General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz? Obviously, no-one in their right mind would trust people of such divided loyalty in wartime.
“I don’t feel persecuted, it’s just that people acting like commissars and inquisitors are constantly attacking me for my harmless claims.”
Hrmmmm…
Only in that they give a thin veneer of not-so-plausible deniability to racist claims. “Possible”, not “foreign”. That you think alleging Jewish Treachery in foreign matters rather than domestic makes any difference is… odd.
“Blacks in law enforcement are possibly watermellon thieving white-woman-raping drug dealers, and we have to investigate them to make sure.”
“Gays in the education system are possibly kiddy raping gay-converting moral cancers, and we have to investigate them to make sure.”
“Jews in politics are possibly traitors to their nation as they advance Jewish goals above their own home’s, and we have to investigate them to make sure.”
All are racist, all for exactly the same reason.
Yes, even with a weasel word thrown in.
The fact that we’ve been racist against other groups does not mean that it’s any less racist if it’s about specific groups. That we are ‘just’ racist and not interning them also doesn’t make it any less racist.
Your nonsense about Germans is particularly relevant to me. My wife’s family are Texas German and many were horrified by the actions of the Nazis and fought against them as part of America’s military. It would be very interesting to see you (“possibly”) questioning their patriotism and integrity simply due to their nationality. Here’s a radical suggestion, Germans who showed suspicious behavior should have been under suspicion, and having grandparents from Germany is not suspicious behavior, it’s ethnic heritage.
By the way, probably the most famous person to betray his nation to the Nazis during WWII? Quisling. Coincidentally, not a German.
Who’d a thunk it?
If you’re going to make comments about “people who can 'read” you might want to link to Leon Wieseltier’s actual article, not to two of Sully’s friends defending him against a charge that Wieseltier never makes.
http://www.tnr.com/article/something-much-darker
Nowhere in that piece does Wieseltier accuse Sullivan of being an anti-Semite. The closest he comes to it is saying “To me, he looks increasingly like the Buchanan of the Left” and suggesting that Sullivan is grossly insensitive.
Accusing someone of being insensitive to Jews/blacks/Muslims/insert group here is not the same as accusing someone of racism.
Chait and Goldberg, whom you linked to merely argued that Sully wasn’t anti-Semitic, not that he wasn’t insensitive to Jews. In fact, Sully and Goldberg have had many public fights on the Atlantic where Goldberg has made similar charges.
So then you’re saying you wouldn’t have trusted Dwight Eisenhower.:smack:
Beyond that, the US isn’t at war with Israel.
Moreover, with the obvious exceptions of Native Americans, all Americans are the descendants of immigrants.
People generally aren’t suspicious of Japanese Americans, Polish Americans, Irish Americans or Chinese Americans in high places so why should be concerned about Jewish Americans in high places?
Well, obviously, they were Good Germans. The only way to deal with a potentially treacherous race is to investigate them in order to make sure that they’re not up to any bad-race-stuff.
Naturally.
Just like the French aren’t necessarily necrophiliac child murderers, but they possibly are and we never can be too sure and, hey, I’m just asking questions here. Stop non-persecuting me, you stormtrooper!
You can choose to behave like an inquistor or a commissar. That doesnt mean you truly have any power. I’m not talking about myself here, I’m talking about the type of people that constantly feel the need to ask someone if they’re racist and antisemite. That was one of the points of the OP.
I must have a little more room in my blinders than you do then, cause the difference is quite clear.
Didnt know they were in the Foreign service. Was under the impression they were in the military, might explain the military titles.
Anyway, I was evidently refering to the German American Bund.
Are you suggesting that just because there is no direct accusation written word for word that the article linked is not an indictment of Sullivan as anti-semite?
Better, and easier for all involved, call me stupid directly.
You points would be better made if they lacked the woe-is-me-I’m-such-a-martyr expressions. Though by all means go on using them, if you want.
Lemmie get this straight, just so I understand it - it is perfectly sensible to question the loyalty of German-Americans in the foreign service, but not to question that of a German-American who is directly planning the world’s biggest ever invasion directed against Germany - one absoluely dependant on secrecy and discretion? :dubious: What possible ability has a german-american foreign service bureaucrat to betray his country, that is missed by the leader of the US armed forces in Europe?
See, what I don’t get is why these fine points of distinction matter so much to you. To me at least it is perfectly obvious that there is no substantive difference in questioning the discretion of a person to fill sensitive role X as opposed to Y on the basis of their ethnicity.
It’s simply incorrect to say “NOBODY was calling Haley Barbour a racist.” He WAS called a racist by many people who thought he was (pun intended) whitewashing the racism of Yazoo City’s leading businessmen.
Thing is, Barbour was NOT portraying Yazoo City as a racial Utopia. nor was he saying the town’s leading white citizens were progressive liberals and champions of integration. They weren’t! Not by a long shot. And yet…
And yet, when integration was finally forced on the South, it was usually the local white bigwigs who decided whether things would go smoothly or whether integration was to be fought tooth and nail every step of the way. In SOME Southern towns, things got very ugly before they got better. In others, white community leaders decided that the handwriting was on the wall, and that there was nothing to do but accept the inevitable changes and make them work as smoothly as possible.
As I said, Yazoo City was no Paradise for blacks, and it still isn’t. But integration went fairly smoothly there because, ultimately, even the racist white men who ran the city saw what had to be done, and (however reluctantly) made it work.
Nobody has to give the white businessmen of Yazoo City a medal or a standing ovation for yielding to the inevitable… but when you look at how ugly and violent the integration process was in OTHER Southern towns, maybe you should acknowledge that the elders of Yazoo City did something right. In towns where even racist businessmen and civic leaders were relatively sane and willing to cope with unwanted change, integration worked. In places where such people didn’t exist, groups like the Klan DID thrive.
I don’t idealize genteel racists, but they were MUCH easier to deal with than the other kind, and progressives should thank their lucky stars that the genteel racists existed.
No, the article does not accuse Sully of being an anti-Semite, merely being insensitive. There’s a massive difference.
Also, I didn’t call you stupid, suggest you were, or think you are so I don’t get the last sentence.
What is the difference between may possibly be disloyal and are of questionable loyalty?