Stephen Miller pushed Breitbart to cover content from White Supremacist websites

[BmorePat87]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/stephen-miller-leaked-emails/index.html

SPLC released hundreds of emails between Stephen Miller and a Breitbart staffer that he sent while a senior aide to Jeff Sessions in 2015. In them, Miller pushed the staffer on creating narratives and covering content related to immigration and race, forwarding her links to white supremacist websites and Infowars as references.

The White House responded by attacking the SLPC rather than addressing the content of the emails.

[GMDino]

(11-12-2019, 11:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/stephen-miller-leaked-emails/index.html

SPLC released hundreds of emails between Stephen Miller and a Breitbart staffer that he sent while a senior aide to Jeff Sessions in 2015. In them, Miller pushed the staffer on creating narratives and covering content related to immigration and race, forwarding her links to white supremacist websites and Infowars as references.

The White House responded by attacking the SLPC rather than addressing the content of the emails.

Weird.

I mean who would have guessed Miller was a racist SOS?  Or that the White House would attack the source and not the issue?

All seriousness aside no Trump supporter will care. It's all "fake news" "deep state" "never trumpers".

Or is that too emotional a response from me?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-12-2019, 11:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/12/politics/stephen-miller-leaked-emails/index.html

SPLC released hundreds of emails between Stephen Miller and a Breitbart staffer that he sent while a senior aide to Jeff Sessions in 2015. In them, Miller pushed the staffer on creating narratives and covering content related to immigration and race, forwarding her links to white supremacist websites and Infowars as references.

The White House responded by attacking the SLPC rather than addressing the content of the emails.

A few things.  First, I'd like to know what "white supremacist websites" we are talking about.  I may have missed others, but the only site listed in the article is Infowars, which is absolutely not "white supremacist" and VDARE, which I've never heard of.  While I agree that the optics on attacking the source aren't good the SPLC is not to be relied upon for anything resembling fair judgment in this regard.  According to Vox and Vice, Pewdiepie is a white supremacist so anyone watching his Youtube videos is consuming "white supremacist" content.  This is why the knee jerk reaction to label things as racist, and the recent trend of blaming everything bad on Earth on "white supremacy", is so damaging to actual rational discourse.  If the PSLC was still a reasonable arbiter of hate groups, and everything not left of Joy Behar wasn't auto-labeled racist I'd actually be able to take this story at face value.  As it is I can't, and honestly no right thinking person should without further information.

[Au165]

(11-13-2019, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A few things.  First, I'd like to know what "white supremacist websites" we are talking about.  I may have missed others, but the only site listed in the article is Infowars, which is absolutely not "white supremacist" and VDARE, which I've never heard of.  While I agree that the optics on attacking the source aren't good the SPLC is not to be relied upon for anything resembling fair judgment in this regard.  According to Vox and Vice, Pewdiepie is a white supremacist so anyone watching his Youtube videos is consuming "white supremacist" content.  This is why the knee jerk reaction to label things as racist, and the recent trend of blaming everything bad on Earth on "white supremacy", is so damaging to actual rational discourse.  If the PSLC was still a reasonable arbiter of hate groups, and everything not left of Joy Behar wasn't auto-labeled racist I'd actually be able to take this story at face value.  As it is I can't, and honestly no right thinking person should without further information.

VDare is very much so a white nationalist website. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2019, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A few things.  First, I'd like to know what "white supremacist websites" we are talking about.  I may have missed others, but the only site listed in the article is Infowars, which is absolutely not "white supremacist" and VDARE, which I've never heard of.  

American Renaissance and VDARE are the white supremacist publications he was promoting.

Quote:While I agree that the optics on attacking the source aren't good the SPLC is not to be relied upon for anything resembling fair judgment in this regard.  According to Vox and Vice, Pewdiepie is a white supremacist so anyone watching his Youtube videos is consuming "white supremacist" content.  This is why the knee jerk reaction to label things as racist, and the recent trend of blaming everything bad on Earth on "white supremacy", is so damaging to actual rational discourse.  If the PSLC was still a reasonable arbiter of hate groups, and everything not left of Joy Behar wasn't auto-labeled racist I'd actually be able to take this story at face value.  As it is I can't, and honestly no right thinking person should without further information.

Your most substantial contribution to this thread is complaining about SPLC's bias and the quickness that liberal outlets have at labeling things racist. Instead, you could have just read the emails and then googled the sources to see that they do indeed promote white supremacy. 

I wouldn't have posted this story if he told her to watch Pewdiepie's youtube channel.

[CJD]

Well yea...Have you ever heard him speak before?

[BmorePat87]

The White House should push for Miller to resign immediately. Someone in this position with a history of promoting white supremacist publications should not keep their position.

Trump likes him, though, and this position on immigration is what has caused him to have so much influence. I don't see this happening. Attacking the source of the email "leak" rather than the emails was a calculated move to ignore his comments and reframe the conversation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2019, 09:55 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: American Renaissance and VDARE are the white supremacist publications he was promoting.

OK, and are they white supremacist websites?  I ask because I'm not familiar with them and I certainly wouldn't take the SPLC's word for it.  Also, as I've pointed out, it seems the white supremacy label is a go to for any political opinion that progressives disagree with.  Again, the massive overuse of the accusations of white racism have made me rather skeptical of further accusations.

Quote:Your most substantial contribution to this thread is complaining about SPLC's bias and the quickness that liberal outlets have at labeling things racist. Instead, you could have just read the emails and then googled the sources to see that they do indeed promote white supremacy. 

I wouldn't have posted this story if he told her to watch Pewdiepie's youtube channel.

Dude, you sound like you're taking it personally.  You didn't write the article you just made a thread about it.  As for contributing to the thread, I'm engaging in a discussion about the very facts involved in your story.  I suppose if I just nodded my head and agreed with you, as other (very substantial and fact filled I might add) posts in this thread have done then I'd be an A+ contributor?

Let me posit a for-instance.  Suppose a person posts an extremely well written, well sourced and entirely fact based article about race and crime.  Everyone reads it and is impressed by its thoroughness.   Then it turns out you got the article from a website known to traffic in racism.  Does that make now taint the article you previously found so well written and researched?  I'm not saying that's the case here, I just think it's a question worth pondering.  Is the issue with the articles he provided or their source?

As for Pewdiepie, I know you wouldn't do that, but you're not what I'm talking about here.  Pewds is yet another example, in a very long list, of people that have been labeled as white supremacist by the progressive outrage mob.  He's an illustration of a larger point.

Lastly, I would add that Miller is Jewish, which would make him about the worst white supremacist ever.

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2019, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, and are they white supremacist websites?  I ask because I'm not familiar with them and I certainly wouldn't take the SPLC's word for it.  Also, as I've pointed out, it seems the white supremacy label is a go to for any political opinion that progressives disagree with.  Again, the massive overuse of the accusations of white racism have made me rather skeptical of further accusations.



Dude, you sound like you're taking it personally.  You didn't write the article you just made a thread about it.  As for contributing to the thread, I'm engaging in a discussion about the very facts involved in your story.  I suppose if I just nodded my head and agreed with you, as other (very substantial and fact filled I might add) posts in this thread have done then I'd be an A+ contributor?

Let me posit a for-instance.  Suppose a person posts an extremely well written, well sourced and entirely fact based article about race and crime.  Everyone reads it and is impressed by its thoroughness.   Then it turns out you got the article from a website known to traffic in racism.  Does that make now taint the article you previously found so well written and researched?  I'm not saying that's the case here, I just think it's a question worth pondering.  Is the issue with the articles he provided or their source?

As for Pewdiepie, I know you wouldn't do that, but you're not what I'm talking about here.  Pewds is yet another example, in a very long list, of people that have been labeled as white supremacist by the progressive outrage mob.  He's an illustration of a larger point.

Lastly, I would add that Miller is Jewish, which would make him about the worst white supremacist ever.

Wow...

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2019, 11:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Wow...

Is this contributing to the thread?

[GMDino]

Asked about Stephen Miller,
a @WhiteHouse official said, “This is clearly a form of anti-Semitism to levy these attacks against a Jewish staffer.”

Trump White House uses Jewish people as human shields to perpetuate racist hatred. I denounce Trump and @GOP enablers. #NeverAgain https://t.co/4Wem9Gqgwp

— Nancy Levine ? (@nancylevine) November 13, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2019, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is this contributing to the thread?

I suggested looking at the contents of the emails rather than complaining about the media throwing around the term "white supremacist" and suggested that I wouldn't have posted this if they weren't actually white supremacist outlets he pushed, and you responded by continuing to complain about the term being thrown around and accusing me of being emotional about it.

No, just look it up yourself. All you gotta do is google those websites. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2019, 01:08 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Asked about Stephen Miller,
a @WhiteHouse official said, “This is clearly a form of anti-Semitism to levy these attacks against a Jewish staffer.”

Trump White House uses Jewish people as human shields to perpetuate racist hatred. I denounce Trump and @GOP enablers. #NeverAgain https://t.co/4Wem9Gqgwp

— Nancy Levine ? (@nancylevine) November 13, 2019

 

Like I said, the White House isn't going to honest about this. 

[GMDino]

(11-13-2019, 01:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Like I said, the White House isn't going to honest about this. 

I'd suggest that this White House isn't honest about anything, but....

[BmorePat87]

In one email, Miller criticizes the Pope's pro-immigrant comments, comparing them to The Camp of the Saints, a French book from the 70's in which an indian man who eats poops leads an immigrant invasion of Indians, Chinese, and Africans (all described as savages) against White Europe. They kill all white people who oppose them, trample their liberal supporters to death, force the queen of England to marry her son to a Pakistani woman, and force the mayor of New York to let black families live in his house. A hero of the book defends White Christianity by killing immigrants and liberals along side an assimilated Indian man who praises the whites and admonishes the indians.

The book, like the Turner Diaries, is considered a must read in white supremacists circles. Unlike the Turner Diaries, it isn't critical of Jews.

[GMDino]

(11-13-2019, 02:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: In one email, Miller criticizes the Pope's pro-immigrant comments, comparing them to The Camp of the Saints, a French book from the 70's in which an indian man who eats poops leads an immigrant invasion of Indians, Chinese, and Africans (all described as savages) against White Europe. They kill all white people who oppose them, trample their liberal supporters to death, force the queen of England to marry her son to a Pakistani woman, and force the mayor of New York to let black families live in his house. A hero of the book defends White Christianity by killing immigrants and liberals along side an assimilated Indian man who praises the whites and admonishes the indians.

The book, like the Turner Diaries, is considered a must read in white supremacists circles. Unlike the Turner Diaries, it isn't critical of Jews.

I think this qualifies as contributing to the thread....

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-13-2019, 01:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I suggested looking at the contents of the emails rather than complaining about the media throwing around the term "white supremacist" and suggested that I wouldn't have posted this if they weren't actually white supremacist outlets he pushed, and you responded by continuing to complain about the term being thrown around and accusing me of being emotional about it.

No, just look it up yourself. All you gotta do is google those websites. 

I'm asking follow up questions.  You don't want to answer them then fine.  I'm also not complaining about the term being thrown around, I'm stating a fact.  As for you being emotional about it, you clearly are.  Why would you start this thread and then complain when people ask questions about the content? 

[BmorePat87]

(11-13-2019, 02:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm asking follow up questions.  You don't want to answer them then fine.  I'm also not complaining about the term being thrown around, I'm stating a fact.  As for you being emotional about it, you clearly are.  Why would you start this thread and then complain when people ask questions about the content? 

I stopped reading your post when you accused me of being emotional and just responded with "wow..." because that was my reaction to it.

I have no issues with you asking questions. I took issue with you attacking SLPC and how things are labeled rather than looking to see if the sources were white supremacist publications. 

I just read your question about the use of the sources versus the content. If you are citing commentary from a white supremacist publication, then the source absolutely plays a factor. If the publication was simply re-hosting or re-sharing primary sources or data, then that's different, but rarely is anything like that provided without commentary and you still have to ask why that source was chosen if the information can be found anywhere else. 

It implies he frequently accesses those publications. 

[fredtoast]

(11-13-2019, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is why the knee jerk reaction to label things as racist, and the recent trend of blaming everything bad on Earth on "white supremacy", is so damaging to actual rational discourse.  If the PSLC was still a reasonable arbiter of hate groups, and everything not left of Joy Behar wasn't auto-labeled racist I'd actually be able to take this story at face value.  As it is I can't, and honestly no right thinking person should without further information.

So just so I understand.  .  .  

"Knee-jerk reactions" and "auto-labelling" are damaging to "rational discourse" UNLESS you are having a knee-jerk reaction to statements by the PSLC and auto-labelling all their opinions as liberal BS.

And obviously the fact that a lot of people are accused of being racists means all claims of racism are false.  Who could argue with logic like that.

[Dill]

(11-13-2019, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Let me posit a for-instance.  Suppose a person posts an extremely well written, well sourced and entirely fact based article about race and crime.  Everyone reads it and is impressed by its thoroughness.   Then it turns out you got the article from a website known to traffic in racism.  Does that make now taint the article you previously found so well written and researched?  I'm not saying that's the case here, I just think it's a question worth pondering.  Is the issue with the articles he provided or their source?

A good "for instance" and a question I ponder often, and have discussed several times in this forum.  I'm thinking it is important to understand that some news sources have some combination of agenda and editing which makes what they publish suspect, and consistently so (E.g., the Drudge Report, WND, and Fox). However, the source alone is not enough to condemn. Every article or essay or poll still has to stand on its own.

If you are invoking this standard, and not merely pondering it, it brings with it two obligations: first to check sources of others' claims, and to NOT make hasty generalizations about their (the claims) validity before examining their derivation. And second, to make sure one's own claims are supported/demonstrated to degree demanded of others, preferably to a higher degree.

But if this is the standard, the following comments are puzzling.

(11-13-2019, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A few things.  First, I'd like to know what "white supremacist websites" we are talking about.  I may have missed others, but the only site listed in the article is Infowars, which is absolutely not "white supremacist" and VDARE, which I've never heard of.  While I agree that the optics on attacking the source aren't good the SPLC is not to be relied upon for anything resembling fair judgment in this regard.  According to Vox and Vice, Pewdiepie is a white supremacist so anyone watching his Youtube videos is consuming "white supremacist" content.  This is why the knee jerk reaction to label things as racist, and the recent trend of blaming everything bad on Earth on "white supremacy", is so damaging to actual rational discourse.  If the PSLC was still a reasonable arbiter of hate groups, and everything not left of Joy Behar wasn't auto-labeled racist I'd actually be able to take this story at face value.  As it is I can't, and honestly no right thinking person should without further information.

The SPLC website article answers the question fairly directly, what "websites we are talking about." https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/11/12/stephen-millers-affinity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails.

Also, the SPLC article seems pretty well documented, connecting Miller directly to several prominent white nationalists and one prominent Islamophobe. I don't read the SPLC site often, but from the few things I've read--including this piece on Miller--I've seen no reason to claim they "are not to be relied upon by anything resembling fair judgment."  In any case, they do not ask us to take anything "at face value" in this report, but provide links and other kinds of supporting documentation which can be quickly checked. 

I do think there is something called "white supremacy," and it is behind a spate of mass murders from New Zealand to Norway to Pittsburgh.  So something worthy of concern, especially if White House advisers traffic with it and there is a chance that it could inform US policy (e.g. child separation at the border, Muslim bans) from the highest levels. So we definitely do see white nationalism frequently discussed in the news, sometimes in connection with the president and his advisors, and not without warrant. 

However, I am not aware of a "recent trend of blaming everything bad on Earth on 'white supremacy.'"  I have not seen "everything not left of Joy Behar auto-labeled as racist."  Perhaps there are people who do that: student protestors or some Youtube leftists. But I am not getting that from the more reliable news outlets or the political leadership of the Democratic party, at least.

Thus it seems odd to disqualify an SPLC article without actually checking it, simply because the SPLC is the source,

and then to invoke the very criterion NOT being deployed in the SPLC critique, namely that each article/claim should be checked/judged on its own merits--a standard this SPLC article could likely meet.

(11-13-2019, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, and are they white supremacist websites?  I ask because I'm not familiar with them and I certainly wouldn't take the SPLC's word for it.  Also, as I've pointed out, it seems the white supremacy label is a go to for any political opinion that progressives disagree with.  Again, the massive overuse of the accusations of white racism have made me rather skeptical of further accusations.

Seems you are asking the forum to take your word for it that "the white supremacy label is a go to for any political opinion that progressives disagree with." Even if you could find cases of some progressives calling some opinions "white supremacy," that would establish neither that all progressives do that, nor that in the given case the "some" who attach the label were simply wrong, especially if their "labels" are supported.  

I DO see posts in this forum, and on right-leaning news sites, contesting the continued existence of or effects of white racism in the US in response to protests like Black Lives Matter or the debate over reparations or in criminal justice data on sentencing. I'm hoping that's not what you mean by "massive overuse of accusations of white racism."

In short, it seems you articulate a valid problem and invoke a legitimate standard for judging news sources--at least to "ponder"--but then you exempt yourself from it, both in your critique of the SPLC and in your "auto-labeling" of progressives. 

(11-13-2019, 11:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, I would add that Miller is Jewish, which would make him about the worst white supremacist ever.

He may not be a particularly good white supremacist. But that would not prevent him from being racist to the bone when it comes to immigrants from "shithole" countries.