the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 14 Feb 2019, 19:20

Aresen wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:12
No, it's that I deplore the outsized influence of one particular lobby and one small country that can 'wag the dog' on the US. The Jordan River and Dead Sea are not the US border.
No shit. I'd like to abandon them entirely. But that's just evading the question that you quoted. I think we can walk and chew bubble-gum when it comes to the issues of Israel and anti-semitism. At the risk of going "For a magazine called reason...", giving a pass to the latter on the grounds of "Well, they'd be accused of it anyway..." is neither thoughtful nor civil.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 14 Feb 2019, 19:26

Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:09
Criticizing "money in politics" and "lobbyists' money in politics" is bog-standard on both sides of the American political aisle, and doesn't suddenly become anti-Semitic just because the lobbyist money in question comes from Israel.

EDIT: I just-now saw this post from you: "It helps to clearly present one's criticisms as being of a lobbying group and not a winking swipe at an ethnic group." Well, that's exactly what she did -- she did not criticize "Jews"; she criticized "AIPAC."
"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question "GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy threatens punishment for @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib over their criticisms of Israel. It's stunning how much time US political leaders spend defending a foreign nation even if it means attacking free speech rights of Americans." (The article Greenwald linked to is even worse, IMO: McCarthy compared her "AIPAC/benjamins" comments to Steve King saying he doesn't understand why white supremacy is supposed to be a bad thing. THAT is the context in which she made her benjamins remark.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 14 Feb 2019, 19:29

Semi-related anecdote: "benjamins" is such common slang, Harry Turtledove uses it in his Crosstime Traffic series (his books written for high-schoolers, more "educational" and less R-rated than his standard alt-histories) ; it's set about 100 years in the future and, among other societal changes, inflation has eroded the value of U.S. currency so much that instead of our standard money being the "dollar," divided into 100 "cents," the standard is the "benjamin," divided into 100 dollars. And the teenage protagonists will hear things like "When your grandpa was a little boy, a dollar bought as much as a benjamin does now."
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 14 Feb 2019, 19:40

Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:09
Criticizing "money in politics" and "lobbyists' money in politics" is bog-standard on both sides of the American political aisle, and doesn't suddenly become anti-Semitic just because the lobbyist money in question comes from Israel.

EDIT: I just-now saw this post from you: "It helps to clearly present one's criticisms as being of a lobbying group and not a winking swipe at an ethnic group." Well, that's exactly what she did -- she did not criticize "Jews"; she criticized "AIPAC."
"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope. When you're building a rep for saying anti-semitic things, people don't give you credit for an implied answer to an implied question.

(Except here, of course. This is about the only place I've seen people, even people consistently outraged at the Israeli government, go on about how she got a raw deal by being, uh, criticized for her tweets. The most sympathetic things I've seen other people say are, "Wow, she's really gotta learn the dog-whistles before she walks right into more of them. " )
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 27435
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by thoreau » 14 Feb 2019, 19:50

I agree that Ilhan Omar has baggage that makes it harder to read her charitably. She has to deal with that.

What I wonder is if there is any way that someone who lacks her baggage can point to AIPAC's influence and spending without falling into the trope of Jews running the world. It seems like it would take about a gazillion "We're not talking about Jews as a group, or all aspects of US policy, just one particular organization influencing one part of US foreign policy" disclaimers, and even then people would say that the critic is anti-Semitic. And because that trope is so old, most listeners would believe the allegation rather than give a fair hearing to the critic of AIPAC. Which means that it's probably impossible to criticize AIPAC in any sort of productive way.
"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15430
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Aresen » 14 Feb 2019, 19:52

Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:20
Aresen wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:12
No, it's that I deplore the outsized influence of one particular lobby and one small country that can 'wag the dog' on the US. The Jordan River and Dead Sea are not the US border.
No shit. I'd like to abandon them entirely. But that's just evading the question that you quoted. I think we can walk and chew bubble-gum when it comes to the issues of Israel and anti-semitism. At the risk of going "For a magazine called reason...", giving a pass to the latter on the grounds of "Well, they'd be accused of it anyway..." is neither thoughtful nor civil.
I am not going to give IIhan Omar a pass for anti-semitism any more than I'd give Trump a pass for his bigotry. I made my initial comment without knowledge of her prior tweets and made that the basis for a comment that crossing AIPAC and Israel is politically risky. I haven't seen her prior tweets and cannot judge whether she is anti-semitic. As you point out, however, the fact that she backtracked so promptly indicates she was probably aware she overstepped.

I reacted to what I knew based on my perception that AIPAC always and immediately goes for the throat, crying 'anti-semitism' at even the mildest objection to their positions and that US politicians lack the guts to call them on it. They've 'cried wolf' so often that I tend to assume they are always hyperventilating.
Eric the .5b wrote:The most sympathetic things I've seen other people say are, "Wow, she's really gotta learn the dog-whistles before she walks right into more of them.
Yeah. Politics is full of landmines. If you're going to survive in the game, you either gotta know where they are or not give a shit what you blow up and be content with marginalization.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 25813
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Warren » 14 Feb 2019, 19:56

Aresen wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:52
Yeah. Politics is full of landmines. If you're going to survive in the game, you either gotta know where they are or not give a shit what you blow up and be content with marginalization.
So you agree, the President is marginalized.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 14 Feb 2019, 19:56

Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:09
Criticizing "money in politics" and "lobbyists' money in politics" is bog-standard on both sides of the American political aisle, and doesn't suddenly become anti-Semitic just because the lobbyist money in question comes from Israel.

EDIT: I just-now saw this post from you: "It helps to clearly present one's criticisms as being of a lobbying group and not a winking swipe at an ethnic group." Well, that's exactly what she did -- she did not criticize "Jews"; she criticized "AIPAC."
"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope.
As Thoreau asked already, how can one criticize AIPAC without being accused of this? Especially since (as Aresen noted -- I gotta type my comments faster) they already insist any critic is an anti-Semite, and US politicians really do bend over for it (to such ludicrous extremes as saying that criticism of Israel is a bad as saying white supremacy is a good thing--WTF?).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 14 Feb 2019, 20:14

thoreau wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:50
Which means that it's probably impossible to criticize AIPAC in any sort of productive way.
I don't believe this.

I think the real problem is that many people have left the public criticism of Israel to anti-semites and people who run in the circles of anti-semites. (AIPAC didn't invent the actual anti-semitic component of this.) Then, the people who pipe up about Israel let slip anti-semitic things, and the problem continues.

Yes, sensible people criticizing Israel might have to be very damn clear about how they're talking about the state and its laws and government, as well as about AIPAC. They might have to watch WTF what they say and avoid saying things that sound like racist references that have been around since the middle ages. It might be fucking work for some public-sector assholes.

But I mean, damn. I'm a right-wing white Texan, who, except for a gullible period after 9/11, isn't in favor of Israel's policies. (At most, I can be less sympathetic than some people have wanted me to be toward the Palestinian government and attacks on Israel.) I've argued with quite a lot of people about it. I even once royally pissed off a Jewish friend while arguing about the US's support of Israel—and yet, you know what nobody, not even that friend, ever accused me of? Being anti-semitic.

And yeah, yeah, AIPAC exists. But they only have leverage when other people see anti-semitism. If they don't, well, we know people rankle at what they see as false accusations of racism.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 25813
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Warren » 14 Feb 2019, 21:04

Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 20:14
thoreau wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:50
Which means that it's probably impossible to criticize AIPAC in any sort of productive way.
I don't believe this.
Matt Welch ranted about exactly that on this weeks 5thC.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9457
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by nicole » 15 Feb 2019, 00:20

Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:56
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:09
Criticizing "money in politics" and "lobbyists' money in politics" is bog-standard on both sides of the American political aisle, and doesn't suddenly become anti-Semitic just because the lobbyist money in question comes from Israel.

EDIT: I just-now saw this post from you: "It helps to clearly present one's criticisms as being of a lobbying group and not a winking swipe at an ethnic group." Well, that's exactly what she did -- she did not criticize "Jews"; she criticized "AIPAC."
"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope.
As Thoreau asked already, how can one criticize AIPAC without being accused of this? Especially since (as Aresen noted -- I gotta type my comments faster) they already insist any critic is an anti-Semite, and US politicians really do bend over for it (to such ludicrous extremes as saying that criticism of Israel is a bad as saying white supremacy is a good thing--WTF?).
You can do it by criticizing AIPAC, which she didn’t do in the tweet. Her answer to the question “why do politicians support Israel?” was “it’s all about the money.” Nothing about AIPAC. Just Israel and money.

The Israel lobby is real but I feel very sure that Kevin McCarthy’s constituents mostly want him to support Israel.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 15 Feb 2019, 03:25

nicole wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 00:20
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:56
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:09
Criticizing "money in politics" and "lobbyists' money in politics" is bog-standard on both sides of the American political aisle, and doesn't suddenly become anti-Semitic just because the lobbyist money in question comes from Israel.

EDIT: I just-now saw this post from you: "It helps to clearly present one's criticisms as being of a lobbying group and not a winking swipe at an ethnic group." Well, that's exactly what she did -- she did not criticize "Jews"; she criticized "AIPAC."
"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope.
As Thoreau asked already, how can one criticize AIPAC without being accused of this? Especially since (as Aresen noted -- I gotta type my comments faster) they already insist any critic is an anti-Semite, and US politicians really do bend over for it (to such ludicrous extremes as saying that criticism of Israel is a bad as saying white supremacy is a good thing--WTF?).
You can do it by criticizing AIPAC, which she didn’t do in the tweet. Her answer to the question “why do politicians support Israel?” was “it’s all about the money.” Nothing about AIPAC. Just Israel and money.
She could've posted the same comment about pretty much anything where government or lobbyists are concerned, though -- I'm going to guess she favors gun control, so the next time there's a mass shooting and someone wonders "Why won't congress Do Something to stop this" -- it's all about the money (from the NRA, gun manufacturers, etc.). Hard-luck story about someone suffering because they can't afford medicine, why won't someone fix this problem -- it's all about the money. Very little in government or politics isn't.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Mo » 15 Feb 2019, 04:20

Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:09
Criticizing "money in politics" and "lobbyists' money in politics" is bog-standard on both sides of the American political aisle, and doesn't suddenly become anti-Semitic just because the lobbyist money in question comes from Israel.

EDIT: I just-now saw this post from you: "It helps to clearly present one's criticisms as being of a lobbying group and not a winking swipe at an ethnic group." Well, that's exactly what she did -- she did not criticize "Jews"; she criticized "AIPAC."
"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope. When you're building a rep for saying anti-semitic things, people don't give you credit for an implied answer to an implied question.
When Thomas Friedman, who has endorsed a good number of aggressive military action by Israel, said something similar he also was called anti-semetic. Anyone who makes the slightest bit of criticism of right wing Israeli policy gets called anti-Semetic.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9457
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by nicole » 15 Feb 2019, 07:08

Jennifer wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 03:25
nicole wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 00:20
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:56
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:15

"What's the big deal about saying black people love fried chicken and watermelon?"

It's a matter of context and presentation. And yes, it's terribly unfair that someone who's made anti-semitic remarks before doesn't get a huge benefit of the doubt when she tries to be clever. LIfe works that way.
Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope.
As Thoreau asked already, how can one criticize AIPAC without being accused of this? Especially since (as Aresen noted -- I gotta type my comments faster) they already insist any critic is an anti-Semite, and US politicians really do bend over for it (to such ludicrous extremes as saying that criticism of Israel is a bad as saying white supremacy is a good thing--WTF?).
You can do it by criticizing AIPAC, which she didn’t do in the tweet. Her answer to the question “why do politicians support Israel?” was “it’s all about the money.” Nothing about AIPAC. Just Israel and money.
She could've posted the same comment about pretty much anything where government or lobbyists are concerned, though -- I'm going to guess she favors gun control, so the next time there's a mass shooting and someone wonders "Why won't congress Do Something to stop this" -- it's all about the money (from the NRA, gun manufacturers, etc.). Hard-luck story about someone suffering because they can't afford medicine, why won't someone fix this problem -- it's all about the money. Very little in government or politics isn't.
Okay, well, I 100% disagree about that. As I said, Republican voters also support Israel. But I guess they were hypnotized too.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 15 Feb 2019, 07:23

nicole wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 07:08
Jennifer wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 03:25
nicole wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 00:20
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:56
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:26

Except that "money" (from AIPAC) most likely IS the answer to Greenwald's tweeted (implied) question
Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope.
As Thoreau asked already, how can one criticize AIPAC without being accused of this? Especially since (as Aresen noted -- I gotta type my comments faster) they already insist any critic is an anti-Semite, and US politicians really do bend over for it (to such ludicrous extremes as saying that criticism of Israel is a bad as saying white supremacy is a good thing--WTF?).
You can do it by criticizing AIPAC, which she didn’t do in the tweet. Her answer to the question “why do politicians support Israel?” was “it’s all about the money.” Nothing about AIPAC. Just Israel and money.
She could've posted the same comment about pretty much anything where government or lobbyists are concerned, though -- I'm going to guess she favors gun control, so the next time there's a mass shooting and someone wonders "Why won't congress Do Something to stop this" -- it's all about the money (from the NRA, gun manufacturers, etc.). Hard-luck story about someone suffering because they can't afford medicine, why won't someone fix this problem -- it's all about the money. Very little in government or politics isn't.
Okay, well, I 100% disagree about that. As I said, Republican voters also support Israel. But I guess they were hypnotized too.
You disagree that "money" can be blamed for a lot of left AND right-wing complaints about the role of lobbyists in our government?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
dhex
Posts: 15732
Joined: 05 May 2010, 16:05
Location: 'murica

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by dhex » 15 Feb 2019, 07:32

She's both right and probably an anti semite. I call it "the Ron Paul problem"
"I do wear my New Balance tennis shoes when I'm wearing cargo shorts, though, because truth in advertising." - lunch

User avatar
nicole
Posts: 9457
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by nicole » 15 Feb 2019, 08:02

Jennifer wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 07:23
nicole wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 07:08
Jennifer wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 03:25
nicole wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 00:20
Jennifer wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:56
Eric the .5b wrote:
14 Feb 2019, 19:40

Which is where presentation comes in. Jews manipulating everything with their money is an old anti-semitic trope.
As Thoreau asked already, how can one criticize AIPAC without being accused of this? Especially since (as Aresen noted -- I gotta type my comments faster) they already insist any critic is an anti-Semite, and US politicians really do bend over for it (to such ludicrous extremes as saying that criticism of Israel is a bad as saying white supremacy is a good thing--WTF?).
You can do it by criticizing AIPAC, which she didn’t do in the tweet. Her answer to the question “why do politicians support Israel?” was “it’s all about the money.” Nothing about AIPAC. Just Israel and money.
She could've posted the same comment about pretty much anything where government or lobbyists are concerned, though -- I'm going to guess she favors gun control, so the next time there's a mass shooting and someone wonders "Why won't congress Do Something to stop this" -- it's all about the money (from the NRA, gun manufacturers, etc.). Hard-luck story about someone suffering because they can't afford medicine, why won't someone fix this problem -- it's all about the money. Very little in government or politics isn't.
Okay, well, I 100% disagree about that. As I said, Republican voters also support Israel. But I guess they were hypnotized too.
You disagree that "money" can be blamed for a lot of left AND right-wing complaints about the role of lobbyists in our government?
No, I disagree that “it’s all about the money.”
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6482
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Andrew » 15 Feb 2019, 08:50

dhex wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 07:32
She's both right and probably an anti semite. I call it "the Ron Paul problem"
The Walter Sobchak dilemma.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 23564
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by JasonL » 15 Feb 2019, 08:51

It’s a low bar to be called anti Semitic in any Israel adjacent topic. As with being called a racist, you have to sort of look past “can I say anything without anyone calling me that and trying to crank it up on social media”. The answer is no you can’t, not on any of a dozen topics. That’s just where we are. It kind of doesn’t mean anything truth value wise. The just world I want from this point is only to check ourselves against people who aren’t in the outrage business.

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 15 Feb 2019, 14:56

Mo wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 04:20
When Thomas Friedman, who has endorsed a good number of aggressive military action by Israel, said something similar he also was called anti-semetic. Anyone who makes the slightest bit of criticism of right wing Israeli policy gets called anti-Semetic.
Never heard of that, but then, every public figure gets speciously accused of everything at some point.

Getting called on saying something anti-semitic sticks more when it actually sounds anti-semitic.

Christ, if someone listened to some of you here, they'd think she'd gotten lynched after making a speech about AIPAC, instead of getting some flack from her own party and fellow-travelers after some breezy Twitter snark.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 15 Feb 2019, 16:06

So instead of "It's all about the benjamins" (or even a straightforward "It's about money"), it would be preferable to say "Well, SOME of it is about the money as with all powerful lobbying groups, but Israel also gets a strong contingent of support from fundamentalist Rapture-Christians who support Israel because their end-times prophecies state that 'the Jews' all must return there before Jesus can come down and end the world...." I'm guessing that wouldn't be much better even though it too is the truth.

According to the twitter feed of self-made accomplished person Chelsea Clinton, saying "benjamins" to refer to money is definitely anti-semitic.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 13143
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 15 Feb 2019, 18:59

Jennifer wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 16:06
So instead of "It's all about the benjamins" (or even a straightforward "It's about money"), it would be preferable to say "Well, SOME of it is about the money as with all powerful lobbying groups, but Israel also gets a strong contingent of support from fundamentalist Rapture-Christians who support Israel because their end-times prophecies state that 'the Jews' all must return there before Jesus can come down and end the world...." I'm guessing that wouldn't be much better even though it too is the truth.
Well, if you take the stance that it doesn't matter at all how one presents an idea or whether it comes across as an expression of bigotry, I suppose it couldn't possibly go much better.

Similarly, whatever world leaders do, they just can't win, because David Icke will insist that they're all baby-eating shapeshifting reptoids.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Cet animal est très méchant / Quand on l'attaque il se défend.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 15 Feb 2019, 19:19

Eric the .5b wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 18:59
Jennifer wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 16:06
So instead of "It's all about the benjamins" (or even a straightforward "It's about money"), it would be preferable to say "Well, SOME of it is about the money as with all powerful lobbying groups, but Israel also gets a strong contingent of support from fundamentalist Rapture-Christians who support Israel because their end-times prophecies state that 'the Jews' all must return there before Jesus can come down and end the world...." I'm guessing that wouldn't be much better even though it too is the truth.
Well, if you take the stance that it doesn't matter at all how one presents an idea or whether it comes across as an expression of bigotry, I suppose it couldn't possibly go much better.
I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all how an idea is presented; I'm just saying that "benjamins" as slang for $100 bills or large sums of money in general is not inherently problematic. Even my white-as-wonderbread self has known "about the benjamins" for so long now, I can't even remember when I first heard it. (I was already familiar with it when I read those Turtledove books mentioned upthread -- and I read those in 2012.) Nor do I think it anti-semitic to suggest that money is the reason why so many US politicos do support the government of Israel (and some genuinely nasty stuff they're doing) to ridiculous extremes. For that matter, "money" is the most likely explanation for most shitty things US politicos do, with the notable exception of those politicos openly motivated by extreme right-wingism or social conservatism (a la Steve King's open support for white supremacy).
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15430
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Aresen » 15 Feb 2019, 19:31

I'm going to equivocate on the 'money' part: It has often been used as a proxy for "The Jews" in bigot-speak.

In 1995, after the Parti Quebequois lost the referendum on Quebec separation, Jacques Parizeau, the PQ leader and then Prime Minister of Quebec, blamed the loss on "Money and the Ethnic" vote. It was an anti-semitic dog-whistle and everyone knew it at the time.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 23646
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: the entirely civil and thoughtful israel thread

Post by Jennifer » 15 Feb 2019, 20:01

Aresen wrote:
15 Feb 2019, 19:31
I'm going to equivocate on the 'money' part: It has often been used as a proxy for "The Jews" in bigot-speak.

In 1995, after the Parti Quebequois lost the referendum on Quebec separation, Jacques Parizeau, the PQ leader and then Prime Minister of Quebec, blamed the loss on "Money and the Ethnic" vote. It was an anti-semitic dog-whistle and everyone knew it at the time.
Sure, it often is, but it often isn't, too. Had Greenwald's tweet been identical only mentioning any other government or lobbyist group on the planet -- why are these US politicos so hell-bent on stifling criticism of Saudi Arabia, why did Texas (IIRC) politicos try stifling criticism of the beef industry back in the day -- "money" (mentioned straightforwardly, or in slang talk of benjamins or ducats or whatever is in vogue)--I doubt anyone would've complained about Omar's response. Which, of course, is the main reason it's so devilishly hard (if not impossible) to criticize Israel or its lobbies without being accused of anti-Semitism.

EDIT: Added clause I somehow deleted first time.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests