All these references to “whoever is running his twitter account” mess with me. I really want to continue to mentally picture his stubby little fingers typing out his own tweets on a smartphone.
Do we know this is not the case? I know the Hilary twitter feed uses the addition of “-H” at the end of a tweet to indicate that the tweet came directly from Hilary herself.
Maybe he delegates it out to John Miller and John Barron.
And this has what to do with Trump’s retweet of a neo-Nazi graphic?
Ah right, nothing. But maybe if we keep reading about that thing Hillary did, we’ll forget that Trump retweeted a graphic created by a neo-Nazi, and has a history of doing this.
ETA: If you’d rather have someone as president who has actively used materials created by white supremacists during his campaign for president, has actively refused to disavow support from white supremacists, and says he tends to actively target an entire religious group if elected, than someone who made a bad decision regarding her fucking email several years ago and has presumably learned what NOT to do regarding said email in the future, that speaks volumes about your character.
Speaking of not caring, I think that related to this it is high time for the media to demand that bigots and convicted people like fellow traveler Sheriff Joe Arpaio be repudiated by Trump.
Yes, he is already guilty of racial profyling and he can be convicted now of contempt of court and conspiracy to Influence, impede, or retaliating against a Federal official by threatening or injuring a family member. As Arpaio did when he investigated the wife of the judge in his current contempt of court case.
As pointed many times before, the media and all should demand that Trump do so, just as for less than that Obama was demanded to explain what his alleged fellows were doing. If Trump does not do that, it follows then that Trump loves bigoted authoritarians that flaunt the law and he will do the same to America or that he does not care what his bigoted minions do with the power they will get under his administration.
So I do not worship Hillary, I just think that a vulgarian that loves and encourages neo fascists has no place in the most powerful government in the world.
Of course people can have different opinions.
For example, a reasonable person may see the star-and-talk-of-corruption-and-money image as implying what was intended by its creator: “antisemitism”.
And another reasonable person may well miss that, and retweet it; if so, then when that’s brought to his attention, the acceptable response would be to apologize while noting that no offense was intended. (The acceptable response to that: a free pass.)
But that’s not to give carte blanche to any and all interpretations; some are, as I said, reasonable; and some – well, aren’t. If someone objects to the “6-pointed star” on my yarmulke because he infers that it means I think everyone over fifty should be killed, that’s not a reasonable opinion. If someone objects to the “6-pointed star” on the flag of Israel or a tombstone at Arlington, explaining that he takes it to imply bigotry against all those who have peanut allergies – also not a reasonable opinion.
But some opinions are eminently reasonable; and, when brought to the attention of folks who relay such images, such opinions should draw reasonable responses.
Sure, and every swastika is not a Nazi symbol - it was once used as a goodluck symbol by many cultures. But when it’s on a Nazi flag or Nazi uniform, it’s a Nazi swastika.
(post shortened)
AFAIK, when it was made known that some people objected to the 6-pointed star, the 6-pointed star was quickly changed to a circle(?), and then the tweet was removed.
When this “6-pointed problem” was brought to the attention of the folks in charge of tweets, retweets, and corrections, the “problem” was identified and corrected. I believe that is a reasonable response.
??? As much as I like it? I haven’t tried to dismiss it. You must be thinking of someone else.
I assumed CarnalK must have missed it or didn’t know it was currently under discussion.
Continuing to use an image that was sourced from white supremacist websites is a reasonable response? Wow.
Star of David? Ridiculous! More like the Star of Port Authority David. Am I right?
Trump does not. “Too bad, you should have left it up,” he said.
Also, what you shortened was me specifying that someone who gets that sort of thing brought to their attention should throw in a quick apology; after all. the whole point of this is that the “dog whistle” bit thrives when there’s ambiguity.
If you post an image – and later cover it up, without bothering to mention that you don’t agree with the sentiment intended by the image’s creator – you can imply agreement while implying disagreement; you can hold yourself out as all things to all people; you can silently nod to the offended while silently winking to the offender.
Far better, once you’ve put out something that reasonable people can interpret as the antisemitism intended by its creator, to clarify which side you’re on; don’t just post an offensive image and then remove it without comment; toss in the comment.
Yes you are dismissing it because even after it was clear that conservatives (not just Hillary worshipers) are also criticizing the source and not just the star you posted that:
[QUOTE=doorhinge]
While some Hillary worshipers insist on claiming a 6-pointed star must be, can only be, a SOD if the Trump campaign uses it and a 6-pointed star is only a 6-pointed star if Disney uses it, this sounds like a double standard to me. Or another example of politics as usual.
[/QUOTE]
Also dismissing what the other conservative criticized Trump about.
“You objected to this cross, but not that cross?”
“Well, only one was wreathed in flames.”
“Don’t change the subject, hypocrite!”
And as it was also ignored/dismissed by doorhinge, the actual comment that was made to the correction to the image made a reference to #America First. A motto that has been pointed out by the ADL as having also an anti-semite background and told Trump to drop it a few months ago.
It could have been the FIRST STEP of a reasonable response. The second step would have been “Hey, sorry about that, we didn’t catch the symbolism that could have been implied there. So sorry, won’t do it again”
But that not what the Donald and/or his campaign did. They instead doubled-down by saying that it was not offensive, and implying, as you have in this thread, that no reasonable person could take it that way.
Then, when it is revealed that the post originated from a source that left no doubt about it’s antisemitism, you argue that where it came from doesn’t matter. But it does matter, because the only way DT’s campaign knew about the image, is that it was online at one his supporters racist websites/threads, thus cementing the antisemitism at the core of the image.
You know, I’m so in love with my own cleverness that I wanted to build on this.
Question for you, doorhinge: imagine the reverse of this situation. Let’s say someone creates an image of Trump’s face next to – what, is that a cross? Maybe it’s a lower-case “t”. Whatever it is, it’s wreathed in flames, because the image’s creator wanted to imply a link between Trump and the KKK.
So it gets re-tweeted by Hillary, or her campaign; it draws the predictable response; it’s taken down a couple of hours later. Maybe she follows up with – is that Trump with a Hitler mustache? Well, maybe it’s a Charlie Chaplin mustache. The image’s creator intended a TRUMP=HITLER comparison, but, hey, it’s not explicit, right?
So imagine she tweets that, and then acts all innocent when it’s taken down a couple of hours later. Imagine she keeps doing that, and never apologizes, only ever throwing in a remark about how innocuous the components are. Look, here’s another ‘t’ in a different context; nobody objected to that! And little kids, they draw 't’s, like, all the time; it’s their homework! Plus, how great was Charlie Chaplin, amirite?
Would you say ambiguity abounds, and give her the benefit of the doubt?
(Especially if she adds that, actually, her people should’ve left it up?)
Right. And then Trump jumped in to defend the tweet itself.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/donald-trump-star-hillary-clinton/index.html
So which is it? It was just fine and didn’t need to be changed, or it was anti-Semitic and did?
I know you were a Bernie supporter, but are you seriously that hard up against Hillary that you’d switch to the racist demagogic fearmonger with never anything substantive to say?
doorhinge was a Bernie supporter?!? :eek:
He’s both a Bernie supporter and a Trump supporter, he defended both of them vigorously and concurrently. Not sure if that’s an “anyone but Hillary” thing or a general “revolution now!” thing.
You reminded me of this scene from Annie Hall.
“Jew eat?”
I couldn't find a clip with entire scene but here is another part of scene that fits the topic.Alvy: The failure of the country to get behind New York City is Anti-Semitism.
Rob: Max, the city is terribly run.
Alvy: But I’m not discussing politics or economics. This is foreskin.
Rob: No, no, Max. That’s a very convenient out. Every time some group disagrees with you, it’s because of Anti-Semitism.
Alvy: Don’t you see? The rest of the country looks upon New York like we’re Left-Wing, Communist, Jewish, homosexual pornographers. I think of us that way sometimes and I live here.