NationStates

Jutlop wrote:

Kowani wrote:...no
this is nonsense
the riot was hyped up (prior to happening) pro-trump spaces, the rioters asked trump for pardons, the rioters went on social media and complained that antifa was getting credit for it, they keep saying in the court filings that they were there "at the behest of the president"
this is an extremely fucking dumb point

I wasn't talking about the capital riot

ah
my bad, then
objection retracted

Kowani wrote:

Jutlop wrote:I wasn't talking about the capital riot

ah
my bad, then
objection retracted

No worries,

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

North Washington Republic wrote:
I’m aware that there is a difference between being not being a Zionist and being anti-Semitic. Omar is the latter.

But this isn’t the topic of the thread..

Has Ilhan Omar ever called for the extermination of Jews? No? Then she isn't antisemitic, pure and simple.

That's an absurdly high bar. Racism starts a lot earlier than that.

Political Geography wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
That's an absurdly high bar. Racism starts a lot earlier than that.

Therefore racism towards Jews doesn't always reach the standard of being anti-Semitic.

Jews deserve their own protective term, due to the pogroms up Nazi times. But using that term to exaggerate common racism (committed against Jews rather than say African Americans) really calls into question whether there should be any such term.

And anyway, using a term in a hyperbolic, or propaganda sense, will render it meaningless eventually.

In this thread I'm trying to discourage the over-use of the word "terrorism" because we can't just let it go. It's written into law, and if we don't want anti-terrorism laws and methods used against future BLM protest/rioters, then we shouldn't be even implying that they should be used against Jan 6th Capitol invaders. If "rioters" is strong enough, then that's what we should use.

I am going to put a huge question mark on Anti-Semitism being a mindset that is always and exclusively of the eliminatory/Nazi kind.
Anti-Semitism as a set of beliefs predates the rise of Nazism by a long shot, with Nazi antisemitism being a particularly totalitarian off-shot of racial antisemtism rather than its foundation. Being biased/hostile towards Jews and actively wanting to exterminate them are not synonymous.
Compare racism against Muslims in the five following mindsets:

1.) I don't like Muslims
2.) I don't like Muslims and don't want them to live next door/send my kids to the same school with them etc
3.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to hinder more of them coming into my country
4.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to reduce their number in my country
5.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to bring fiery death to Muslim countries to settle the matter once and for all

All of the above sentences express a mindset that is racist against Muslims but by no means are they synonymous, nor does mindset 1 inevitably lead to mindset 5.

Baltenstein wrote:

Political Geography wrote:
Therefore racism towards Jews doesn't always reach the standard of being anti-Semitic.

Jews deserve their own protective term, due to the pogroms up Nazi times. But using that term to exaggerate common racism (committed against Jews rather than say African Americans) really calls into question whether there should be any such term.

And anyway, using a term in a hyperbolic, or propaganda sense, will render it meaningless eventually.

In this thread I'm trying to discourage the over-use of the word "terrorism" because we can't just let it go. It's written into law, and if we don't want anti-terrorism laws and methods used against future BLM protest/rioters, then we shouldn't be even implying that they should be used against Jan 6th Capitol invaders. If "rioters" is strong enough, then that's what we should use.

I am going to put a huge question mark on Anti-Semitism being a mindset that is always and exclusively of the eliminatory/Nazi kind.
Anti-Semitism as a set of beliefs predates the rise of Nazism by a long shot, with Nazi antisemitism being a particularly totalitarian off-shot of racial antisemtism rather than its foundation. Being biased/hostile towards Jews and actively wanting to exterminate them are not synonymous.
Compare racism against Muslims in the five following mindsets:

1.) I don't like Muslims
2.) I don't like Muslims and don't want them to live next door/send my kids to the same school with them etc
3.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to hinder more of them coming into my country
4.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to reduce their number in my country
5.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to bring fiery death to Muslim countries to settle the matter once and for all

All of the above sentences express a mindset that is racist against Muslims but by no means are they synonymous, nor does mindset 1 inevitably lead to mindset 5.

yes but saying you support palestine is different than saying you hate jews

Political Geography wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
I am going to put a huge question mark on Anti-Semitism being a mindset that is always and exclusively of the eliminatory/Nazi kind.
Anti-Semitism as a set of beliefs predates the rise of Nazism by a long shot, with Nazi antisemitism being a particularly totalitarian off-shot of racial antisemtism rather than its foundation. Being biased/hostile towards Jews and actively wanting to exterminate them are not synonymous.
Compare racism against Muslims in the five following mindsets:

1.) I don't like Muslims
2.) I don't like Muslims and don't want them to live next door/send my kids to the same school with them etc
3.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to hinder more of them coming into my country
4.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to reduce their number in my country
5.) I don't like Muslims and actively want to bring fiery death to Muslim countries to settle the matter once and for all

All of the above sentences express a mindset that is racist against Muslims but by no means are they synonymous, nor does mindset 1 inevitably lead to mindset 5.

Well I don't use the term much anyway, but now that you assure me that it means "racism against Jews" and all the connotations of it being worse than any other (not specially named) racism, I'll make a point of never using it again.

Racism against people for being black, IS NO BETTER OR WORSE than racism against people for being Jewish. If Black people don't get a special term, then Jewish people should not have a special term. Having a special term is literally racist.

The Jews didn't ask for a special term though. The word "anti-semitism" originally started entering the public discourse as a self-descriptor.

Political Geography wrote:

Kubra wrote: about as much to do as that various Trotskyist that make up the periphery of the labour party, or the more "religious" blocs of most mainstream conservative parties, as well as the independent parties that take a hardline "vote democrat/Republican" line. It's pretty normal in 2 party and 2 party plus systems. And yes, it usually involves taking lines sometimes antagonistic to party elements. Ain't no democratic centralism here, nor has there ever been, dig?

I don't criticize the loony Right for calling for unconstitutional laws that don't even have their party's support. Let them fuck their party, I'm happy with that.

But what is the actual point of publicly calling for your party to do things, which you know from the back room are never going to happen? And particularly if your district is deep-blue, as it likely is if a progressive won the primary there. You don't need any more votes personally, so you don't even have the excuse that Manchin does.

because eventually they do happen. Entryism happens because sometimes entryism works, at least insofar as party direction goes. The most infamous example in recent memory is of course the Corbyn debacle, in which a concerted effort was made to get people throwing a bit of dosh at membership and pushing their guy for party leadership. Might not have helped their election prospects (lol), but as mentioned, entryism on the left often isn't about winning the vote.
As for how useful it is, it's difficult to say. While the matter of Corbyn was obviously a *debacle*, all big parties have gone through transformations and a result of the shifting views of membership, retaining only the, well, let's say brand copyright and franchise agreements. I mean this is especially relevant of the Democrats and Republicans, parties that have undergone radical changes more than just that one time everyone remembers, as a result of shifting base and membership.

Political Geography wrote:

Kubra wrote: because eventually they do happen. Entryism happens because sometimes entryism works, at least insofar as party direction goes. The most infamous example in recent memory is of course the Corbyn debacle, in which a concerted effort was made to get people throwing a bit of dosh at membership and pushing their guy for party leadership. Might not have helped their election prospects (lol), but as mentioned, entryism on the left often isn't about winning the vote.
As for how useful it is, it's difficult to say. While the matter of Corbyn was obviously a *debacle*, all big parties have gone through transformations and a result of the shifting views of membership, retaining only the, well, let's say brand copyright and franchise agreements. I mean this is especially relevant of the Democrats and Republicans, parties that have undergone radical changes more than just that one time everyone remembers, as a result of shifting base and membership.

We don't appear to be talking about the same thing. If it's necessary to keep invoking UK politics, there might be some critical difference in how public dissent by members functions there. Maybe UK voters are less inclined to characterize a hostile party by their most radical and outspoken members?

the UK is an example of a very similar political system in which a very prominent example of entryism occurred, and where it is really most humourous pretty much all the time. American entryism is boring, terribly boring. No one wants to hear about the flight of the southern Democrats, and the escapades of Lyndon LaRouche in the democratic party is more morbidly bizarre than funny.

Kubra wrote:

Political Geography wrote:
We don't appear to be talking about the same thing. If it's necessary to keep invoking UK politics, there might be some critical difference in how public dissent by members functions there. Maybe UK voters are less inclined to characterize a hostile party by their most radical and outspoken members?

the UK is an example of a very similar political system in which a very prominent example of entryism occurred, and where it is really most humourous pretty much all the time. American entryism is boring, terribly boring. No one wants to hear about the flight of the southern Democrats, and the escapades of Lyndon LaRouche in the democratic party is more morbidly bizarre than funny.

And then Donald Trump came along and entryisted himself into the GOP and took it over and trashed it.

Nakena wrote:

Kubra wrote: the UK is an example of a very similar political system in which a very prominent example of entryism occurred, and where it is really most humourous pretty much all the time. American entryism is boring, terribly boring. No one wants to hear about the flight of the southern Democrats, and the escapades of Lyndon LaRouche in the democratic party is more morbidly bizarre than funny.

And then Donald Trump came along and entryisted himself into the GOP and took it over and trashed it.

I dunno if that was entryism. Not saying it wasn't, but that *I don't know*. 2016 is a str8 up blur for me.
As an arbitrary prerequisite, to qualify as entryism it's got to involve other dudes signing on the push or you push as a group for someone else. In the case of AOC, it was well known she had the backing of the DSA, who did provide support to her campaign. I dunno if Trump had that sort of thing in the lead up. He probably did, but I just don't remember.

Kubra wrote:

Nakena wrote:
And then Donald Trump came along and entryisted himself into the GOP and took it over and trashed it.

I dunno if that was entryism. Not saying it wasn't, but that *I don't know*. 2016 is a str8 up blur for me.
As an arbitrary prerequisite, to qualify as entryism it's got to involve other dudes signing on the push or you push as a group for someone else. In the case of AOC, it was well known she had the backing of the DSA, who did provide support to her campaign. I dunno if Trump had that sort of thing in the lead up. He probably did, but I just don't remember.

The Trump supporters have always been in the party, they just haven't had this much sway until now. Trump just happened to come along at the right time and say the right things.

Kedri wrote:

Kubra wrote: I dunno if that was entryism. Not saying it wasn't, but that *I don't know*. 2016 is a str8 up blur for me.
As an arbitrary prerequisite, to qualify as entryism it's got to involve other dudes signing on the push or you push as a group for someone else. In the case of AOC, it was well known she had the backing of the DSA, who did provide support to her campaign. I dunno if Trump had that sort of thing in the lead up. He probably did, but I just don't remember.

The Trump supporters have always been in the party, they just haven't had this much sway until now. Trump just happened to come along at the right time and say the right things.

Which would, if so, make it not entryism. Entryism means party composition change comes first, not as a result.

Kedri wrote:

Kubra wrote: I dunno if that was entryism. Not saying it wasn't, but that *I don't know*. 2016 is a str8 up blur for me.
As an arbitrary prerequisite, to qualify as entryism it's got to involve other dudes signing on the push or you push as a group for someone else. In the case of AOC, it was well known she had the backing of the DSA, who did provide support to her campaign. I dunno if Trump had that sort of thing in the lead up. He probably did, but I just don't remember.

The Trump supporters have always been in the party, they just haven't had this much sway until now. Trump just happened to come along at the right time and say the right things.

Pretty much this.

Kubra wrote:

Nakena wrote:
And then Donald Trump came along and entryisted himself into the GOP and took it over and trashed it.

I dunno if that was entryism. Not saying it wasn't, but that *I don't know*. 2016 is a str8 up blur for me.
As an arbitrary prerequisite, to qualify as entryism it's got to involve other dudes signing on the push or you push as a group for someone else. In the case of AOC, it was well known she had the backing of the DSA, who did provide support to her campaign. I dunno if Trump had that sort of thing in the lead up. He probably did, but I just don't remember.

Initially not, later he had support from Bannon and the Mercers. But if thats what you described actually a qualifying factor... then no. Because it was just Trump himself who pushed himself into GOP.

Baltenstein wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:Has Ilhan Omar ever called for the extermination of Jews? No? Then she isn't antisemitic, pure and simple.

That's an absurdly high bar. Racism starts a lot earlier than that.

Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
That's an absurdly high bar. Racism starts a lot earlier than that.

Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

Her mere presence triggered Ben "Badass" Shapiro. That alone is anti-Semitic.

Ayytaly wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

Her mere presence triggered Ben "Badass" Shapiro. That alone is anti-Semitic.

Ayytaly wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

Her mere presence triggered Ben "Badass" Shapiro. That alone is anti-Semitic.

Ben Shapiro is definitely NOT a badass and my definition of anti-Semitic certainly isn’t based on his feelings.

Ayytaly wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

Her mere presence triggered Ben "Badass" Shapiro. That alone is anti-Semitic.

Maybe I can’t read but are you actually defining anti semitism as “something that annoys ben Shapiro”

Odreria wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
Her mere presence triggered Ben "Badass" Shapiro. That alone is anti-Semitic.

Maybe I can’t read but are you actually defining anti semitism as “something that annoys ben Shapiro”

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/05 ... tbart.html

Hilarious considering Ben's political allies wouldn't piss on his corpse if it was on fire specifically because he's not a white Protestant.

Political Geography wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

In reply to someone else's post suggesting the GOP supports Israel because of Jewish American lobbying donations, she said "It's all about the Benjamins baby" and named the lobbyists as "AIPAC"

Within a political context, that's barely even critical of the other party's donor base. If Jews don't want to be targeted by race, they could donate personally instead of through AIPAC. Specifically Jewish lobbying, is fair game.

Also "Benjamins" is slang for money, not because of the ancient Jewish patriarch, but because of Benjamin Franklins face being on some note.

AND she apologized and deleted the tweet. Some Jews seem to make a living being offended at stuff that is barely about them at all.

I thought this was overblown myself but conspiracy nutter don’t make the distinction between AIPAC and other kinds of Jewish lobbying. So no in the eyes of a offended it can’t be fair game.

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
That's an absurdly high bar. Racism starts a lot earlier than that.

Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

I don’t really know if she is an anti-Semite, but she certainly has some pretty awful opinions.

She bashes police for almost anything and I’m pretty sure that she appeared in an image with her daughter, and the daughter had on a necklace that read “ACAB” or some other ridiculous slogan.

Phenix Springs wrote:

Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia wrote:Nor did Ilhan call for any anti-Jewish laws or parroted any discriminatory tropes. Find me a clear and irrefutable example of Ilhan Omar being antisemitic, and then we can talk. Otherwise, you are talking horseshit.

I don’t really know if she is an anti-Semite, but she certainly has some pretty awful opinions.

She bashes police for almost anything and I’m pretty sure that she appeared in an image with her daughter, and the daughter had on a necklace that read “ACAB” or some other ridiculous slogan.

Remember, it's awful to hate an institution that attacks journalists and peaceful protesters.

Vassenor wrote:

Phenix Springs wrote:I don’t really know if she is an anti-Semite, but she certainly has some pretty awful opinions.

She bashes police for almost anything and I’m pretty sure that she appeared in an image with her daughter, and the daughter had on a necklace that read “ACAB” or some other ridiculous slogan.

Remember, it's awful to hate an institution that attacks journalists and peaceful protesters.

It’s awful to hate the group as a whole, yes, which is what “ACAB” means.

Phenix Springs wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, it's awful to hate an institution that attacks journalists and peaceful protesters.

It’s awful to hate the group as a whole, yes, which is what “ACAB” means.

And we don't see a whole lot to disabuse people of the notion.