Yes, in a comedy an unreasonable and ill-founded assertion of anti-Semitism can be funny; it could be funny in real life, too, I guess.
And some assertions of real-life anti-Semitism are remarkably reasonable, which isn’t funny at all: if such an image is intended to be anti-Semitic by its creator, it’s simply reprehensible; if unintended by its re-tweeter, it’s cause for a quick apology.
doorhinge has been told that multiple times. He isn’t listening.
What does it take for you? Hitler to come out and do a dance on your font lawn?
Wasn’t that Mel Brooks’ latest show?
Heh. You know what it brings to mind, for me? UNDERCOVER BROTHER.
Because the whole joke is, there’s that one guy who unreasonably takes offense: say “hi,” he assumes a coded reference to “high yellow” African-Americans; say “good morning,” he launches into a heated lecture about how “good is an ancient Anglo-Saxon word, go-od, meaning the absence of color”…
…but we can all agree that (a) while Trump shouldn’t apologize for an image with a “hi” or a “good morning”, (b) it’s possible to imagine one that’d cause reasonable folks to take offense – sparking a Just As I Hoped from its creator, and an apology from a re-tweeter with, like, a modicum of decency. Or do you disagree, Pearl?
(“George Washington Carver made the first computer! Out of a peanut!”)
Don’t know, but the Trump campaign, and the plot of the Producers, do have a certain similarity.
I should have realized this is so far from original. Maybe this has already been linked, but:
The polls never bothered him anyway.
My sense is that to the extent he supported Bernie, it was tactical, with an expectation that he would be the easier opponent to beat.
Or is that strategic?
“My name is Donald, and I like warm thugs!”
You know somebody else who wanted to bang his daughter?
Lot?
Bravo!!!
But it is directed at Hillary Clinton. What is his message? That Hillary is a money-grubbing, corrupt Jew?
As others have said, Trump is pro-Israel. He has never otherwise shown any type of animus towards Jewish people, and the right criticizes Obama and Clinton for not being friendly enough to Israel.
Even if Turmp absolutely hated Jews as much as Hitler, why would this be directed towards Hillary when she is not Jewish, nor do even right wing radicals believe she is Jewish?
It would be like if something in the background was believed to be a dog whistle in support of the old Jim Crow south. The context of being in a picture with Hillary suggests that it is not a dog whistle because it makes no sense to have it in that place.
The message would be that she takes Jew money and therefore is in the pocket of Jew bankers. It’s not really a huge leap. No I don’t think Trump wanted to put out that message, which is why he so quickly changed it. The person who created it very possibly intended that message given it came from the white power section of the internet.
The message is that Star-Of-David types are using their money to work corruption.
Would you get it if the image showed a large-nosed guy with a yarmulke and earlocks handing her a bag with a big “$” on it? Or would you say “hey, nobody thinks that she’s Jewish, so what’s the problem?”
Others have explained the basics of anti-Semitic tropes and which one is being used there upthread already, several times, immediately above and elsewhere in this now long thread.
The neo-Nazi White supremacist who created that particular bit of propaganda, the one that Trump tweeted along and tenaciously defends, is referencing that which they refer to in various ways as “The Hand” or “the ZOG” (“Zionist Occupation Government”) … the long-standing anti-Semitic theme is that there is a hidden Jewish conspiracy that is not often the face but which controls the puppets that are the face, be it of the country or of the world (and secret plans for a world-state controlled by Jews). Variations include this one, that the secret conspiratorial control is exerted through payola from the Jewish Bankers and financiers/Wall Street to international cabals. It played out heavily in pre-war Nazi Germany in which Hitler claimed that behind the scenes Jews dominated the country’s politics, economy, financial system, and press, and that these disloyal Jews were the cause of Germany’s woes. Once that story was accepted persecution (and ridding the world of the pestilence) was justified and naturally followed.
Honestly though … I can understand some innocent ignorance of those longstanding standards of the anti-Semite playlist … I cannot understand anyone (other than an anti-Semite, a troll, or someone deranged/drug-impaired) trying to claim that a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist message board used a Star of David against a background of money and meant it either as a sheriff’s star or just as an innocent graphic.
Once again, on the list right now this is minor. We just had a crazy kill five cops out of hate of all things White, especially police, we have regularly (just documented more incontrovertibly now) Black males killed by cops without cause. We have a Presidential candidate who has explicitly called upon a variety of hate tropes aimed at both Muslims and Hispanics. This quickly removed anti-Semitic bit of garbage tweet is not the big issue and Jews are not the prime hate target right now.
But is a chance for the anti-Semites to declare themselves for what they are, as some have done in this thread. (Allowing for the other possibilities mentioned.)
It is important to remember that they may be underground most of the time but that they are still here.
Trump’s message is that she takes money from PACs and lobbyists of all races and religions. She is bought and paid for which is why she is corrupt. It also explains the money in the background.
So Trump takes what he thinks is a funny piece of clip art and tweets it with no intention, as you concede, of implying a Jewish cabal of international bankers is influencing Hillary.
But because the left can infer that the creator (who is not Trump) of the the clip art is implying a Jewish conspiracy, and it was posted for a short while, then, therefore Trump is an anti-Semite?
Do you all have a handbook so we can not offend? If I want to use a star as a graphic, is their a particular way I can use it so it is not implied to be a Star of David? The number of points in the star won’t matter because you could easily say that a candidate deliberately altered the number of points so he could have deniability.
It is getting to the point that candidates will have to run any public pronouncement through a team of scholars so as not to offend.
Most seem to manage ok. The problem is that Trump has lost the benefit of the doubt, thanks to his more blatant comments on Mexicans and Muslims. It’s not because of dramatic shift in public discourse.