Stephen Miller pushed Breitbart to cover content from White Supremacist websites

[hollodero]

(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.

But honestly, so is reflexively throwing out complaints about the overuse of the term and by doing so dismissing any story that contains the words "white supremacy".

This story doesn't deserve to be an example of liberal exaggeration.

[*bfine32*]

(11-13-2019, 06:49 PM)hollodero Wrote: But honestly, so is reflexively throwing out complaints about the overuse of the term and by doing so dismissing any story that contains the words "white supremacy".

This story doesn't deserve to be an example of liberal exaggeration.

It's the source, more so than the term and SPLC has fully deserved their reputation for being dismissed as an unbiased source. Are they "right" in this instance? Who knows, but much like when I see a link from Mother Jones, Vox, SPLC I dismiss it as biased garbage because they have earned that title; just as infowars and Breitbart has earned theirs. 

It's kinda like when some in this forum call folks/posts racist. You must consider the source. 

[BmorePat87]

American Renaissance, one of the publication Miller promoted in the emails, is a white supremacist journal by Jared Taylor. Taylor believes in race science and the idea that black people are intellectually inferior to white people and incapable of creating functional societies on their own. He promotes a white homeland and keeping America as white as possible.

He's different from many of his fellow white supremacists in that he pushes to include Jews into the fold of white supremacy.

[BmorePat87]

VDARE is another white supremacist publication promoted by Miller. VDARE was founded by Peter Brimelow, a British immigrant who opposes all immigration, stressing the important of America having an identity established by its first white citizens. He calls diversity a weakness of America and refers to the "trash" from Africa and the "dysfunctional" latinos.

Brimelow claims that VDARE is not a white supremacist or white nationalist publication, but admits that they do host numerous writers from those groups (including Taylor who Brimelow praises), though defends their views and says they have abandoned labels like "white nationalism" because of the negativity associated with it by "liberals who lost an argument".

VDARE is named after the first English child born in the Americas, a resident of the lost colony of Roanoke, as a warning to what will happen to White Christian American culture if immigration continues to be allowed.

[BmorePat87]

I'm happy to have settled any question regarding the labeling of these publications that were promoted by one of the top advisors in the White House.

Perhaps we can move away from complaining about labeling white supremacists as white supremacists and discuss the impact of having someone who peddles white supremacist literature in the White House.

[Dill]

(11-13-2019, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It's the source, more so than the term and SPLC has fully deserved their reputation for being dismissed as an unbiased source. Are they "right" in this instance? Who knows, but much like when I see a link from Mother Jones, Vox, SPLC I dismiss it as biased garbage because they have earned that title; just as infowars and Breitbart has earned theirs. 

It's kinda like when some in this forum call folks/posts racist. You must consider the source. 

Hmm.  The problem with this approach is that Mother Jones, a magazine which has received numerous awards for investigative journalism, then becomes easily equated with Infowars and Breitbart, which have received numerous raspberries for spreading unfounded conspiracy theories and Alt-right "perspective" on national politics, respectively.

MJ has been repeatedly criticized by the left, but that doesn't stop a hard/far leftist extremist such as myself from nevertheless taking its articles on their own merit.

There is something fundamentally wrong about presuming source bias to dismiss arguments/reports without evaluating them--something wrong with "bias hunting" in general.

I think that approach is fundamentally a form of substituting authority for critical analysis. One looks for "bias," trusting the right sources and automatically distrusting the wrong ones, without actually engaging in critical thinking/vetting. 

At present, the GOP can count on their base to do this. That's why its so important to know who the whistleblower is.  His/her politics will tell you all you need to know about whether Trump is guilty of abuse of power--not some far leftist correlation of Trump's actual behavior to the law as written in some phony emoluments clause.  In principle, who you gonna believe--that fake news NYT article on Trump's Deutsche Bank loans or a Tweet from the dear leader?

[Dill]

(11-13-2019, 10:48 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'm happy to have settled any question regarding the labeling of these publications that were promoted by one of the top advisors in the White House.

Perhaps we can move away from complaining about labeling white supremacists as white supremacists and discuss the impact of having someone who peddles white supremacist literature in the White House.

Er, bad news for non-white asylum seekers and non-white children whose parents brought them to the US for safety?

[*bfine32*]

(11-13-2019, 10:58 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmm.  The problem with this approach is that Mother Jones, a magazine which has received numerous awards for investigative journalism, then becomes easily equated with Infowars and Breitbart.

MJ has been repeatedly criticized by the left, but that doesn't stop a hard/far leftist extremist such as myself from nevertheless taking its articles on their own merit.

There is something fundamentally wrong about presuming source bias to dismiss arguments/reports without evaluating them--something wrong with "bias hunting" in general.

I think that approach is fundamentally a form of substituting authority for critical analysis. One looks for "bias," trusting the right sources and automatically distrusting the wrong ones, without actually engaging in critical thinking/vetting. 

At present, the GOP can count on their base to do this. That's why its so important to know who the whistleblower is.  His/her politics will tell you all you need to know about whether Trump is guilty of abuse of power--not some far leftist correlation of Trump's actual behavior to the law as written in some phony emoluments clause.  In principle, who you gonna believe--that fake news NYT article on Trump's Deutsche Bank loans or a Tweet from the dear leader?

If you want to consider Mother Jones, SPLC, Vox and others as non-biased then that's on you. Personally I consider the source. You can assert that only the Right leaning sources are biased and "bad GOP" if you want, but guess what I'm going to do with your assertion...........consider the source. 

But more to the OP: What's the problem? Someone shared their bias with co-worker or am I missing something? If I told a coworker to check out this article by Vox,could I be classified as someone that peddles extreme leftest propaganda?

[Dill]

(11-13-2019, 11:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you want to consider Mother Jones, SPLC, Vox and others as non-biased then that's on you. Personally I consider the source. You can assert that only the Right leaning sources are biased and "bad GOP" if you want, but guess what I'm going to do with your assertion...........consider the source. 

But more to the OP: What's the problem? Someone shared their bias with co-worker or am I missing something? If I told a coworker to check out this article by Vox,could I be classified as someone that peddles extreme leftest propaganda?

Not a "bias" either/or here.  My point was not about flipping the script and calling "biased" sources "non-biased" now. It was a rejection of that procedure altogether.  

The either/or is dismiss/critically examine.  Or to put it a different way--"consider the source" or critically examine.

If you showed your vox article to someone who "considers the source" you might indeed be considered a peddler of extreme leftist propaganda by that person.  Do you want to be like that person?  I don't.

[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.

(11-13-2019, 11:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But more to the OP: What's the problem? Someone shared their bias with co-worker or am I missing something? If I told a coworker to check out this article by Vox,could I be classified as someone that peddles extreme leftest propaganda?

[*bfine32*]

(11-13-2019, 11:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Not a "bias" either/or here.  My point was not about flipping the script and calling "biased" sources "non-biased" now. It was a rejection of that procedure altogether.  

The either/or is dismiss/critically examine.  Or to put it a different way--"consider the source" or critically examine.

If you showed your vox article to someone who "considers the source" you might indeed be considered a peddler of extreme leftist propaganda by that person.  Do you want to be like that person?  I don't.

Exactly...but it seems the OP and SPLC is doing exactly that by slamming Stephen Miller from sharing articles from websites he chose

[BmorePat87]

Tiana Lowe, a conservative commentator who writes for the Washington Examiner, wrote this today

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/its-high-time-for-trump-to-dump-stephen-miller

She details how Trump could have had a political victory on immigration a year into his presidency if he kept DACA (something most Republicans ultimately supported anyways) but he instead listened to Miller who was adamant that DACA be slashed. He lost all leverage and the rest is history.

She responds to the email dump by stating "A damning email dump from former Breitbart editor Katie McHugh points to Miller simply being a racist who hates immigrants"

She goes on to criticize the SPLC's commentary as dismissible drivel, but notes "But the SPLC's contribution here is almost irrelevant, unless the emails are fabricated." It's safe to assume that the White House would have called them fake if they were rather than calling questions about this "Anti-Semitic".

She ends it by explaining why we should care about this:

"The fact is that a Senate staffer who worked his way into the upper echelons of the White House was egging on McHugh to bring unabashedly racist online narratives about immigration into a more mainstream publication. Interns have been fired for less than this. We can't say with certainty what hate is or isn't in Miller's heart, but we know that he was happy enough to use the work of hatemongers and kill the GOP's last shot at immigration reform, apparently because it would help predominantly Mexican immigrants. It's long past time for Trump to dump Miller."

No one who believes in this vile racist rhetoric should be guiding White House policy.

[*bfine32*]

(11-13-2019, 11:41 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Exactly, the source was attacked not the content. I saw absolutely nothing about content in the OP; did you?

[GMDino]

(11-13-2019, 11:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Exactly, the source was attacked not the content. I saw absolutely nothing about content in the OP; did you?

That someone can't see the "problem" with a person who pushes white nationalist propaganda working in the white house on immigration issues says more about them than the source of the proof that that person is in the white house.

How hard would be to say Miller should be out of the White House based on his emails? Versus arguing that the sources can't be trusted or that maybe the wrong "label" is being used.

Nope. Can't just say what he did is despicable.

And that speaks volumes.

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2019, 12:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: That someone can't see the "problem" with a person who pushes white nationalist propaganda working in the white house on immigration issues says more about them than the source of the proof that that person is in the white house.

How hard would be to say Miller should be out of the White House based on his emails?  Versus arguing that the sources can't be trusted or that maybe the wrong "label" is being used.

Nope.  Can't just say what he did is despicable.

And that speaks volumes.

Still haven't seen content to anything he "pushed" just that the source is deemed white nationalist propaganda by some. Share with me some content of what he pushed. What emails should put Miller out of the White House? 

Is the problem that he showed a bias?  Please say yes. 

[GMDino]

(11-14-2019, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Still haven't seen content to anything he "pushed" just that the source is deemed white nationalist propaganda by some. Share with me some content of what he pushed. What emails should put Miller out of the White House? 

Is the problem that he showed a bias?  Please say yes. 

And we're done here.

Not worth getting banned over.

[BmorePat87]

(11-14-2019, 12:19 AM)GMDino Wrote:

And we're done here.

Not worth getting banned over.

No one has an obligation to spoon feed board members who are not interested in looking up the topic themselves but rather demand that their questions (which could have been answered by viewing stories on the topic) be answered by others while simultaneously making erroneous statements about the topic. 

Do we have to actually state that the link from the white supremacist publication shared by Miller the day it was posted complained about how temporary protected status for immigrants leads to "anchor babies" and was probably a tool being used to create a "camp of the saints" situation in the US? 

[*bfine32*]

(11-14-2019, 12:19 AM)GMDino Wrote:

And we're done here.

Not worth getting banned over.

Pretty sure you're safe. But sure, we can be done. 

[GMDino]

(11-14-2019, 12:37 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No one has an obligation to spoon feed board members who are not interested in looking up the topic themselves but rather demand that their questions (which could have been answered by viewing stories on the topic) be answered by others while simultaneously making erroneous statements about the topic. 

Do we have to actually state that the link from the white supremacist publication shared by Miller the day it was posted complained about how temporary protected status for immigrants leads to "anchor babies" and was probably a tool being used to create a "camp of the saints" situation in the US? 

True colors.

"It never happened!" (Because they didn't read the source material)
"The source is biased!" (Because they disagree with the material when its presented to them)
"Ok it happened but we wouldn't have known if it wasn't for the biased source!" (Because the tip is worse than the crime/what was said)
"Ok it happened but what does it matter?" (Because they don't care if there was a crime or a racist helping shape immigration policy in the WH)

As long as they can defend their side and then turn around and CLAIM "both sides do it."

It's no secret that Miller is a racist.  There has been "proof" of it for years.  This just solidifies it in his own words with insight into where he gets his ideas from.  And the WH trying to turn into an attack on a Jew is sad but not unexpected.  This WH is always the victim...despite being alleged tough guys.

[BmorePat87]

(11-14-2019, 09:51 AM)GMDino Wrote: True colors.

"It never happened!" (Because they didn't read the source material)
"The source is biased!" (Because they disagree with the material when its presented to them)
"Ok it happened but we wouldn't have known if it wasn't for the biased source!" (Because the tip is worse than the crime/what was said)
"Ok it happened but what does it matter?" (Because they don't care if there was a crime or a racist helping shape immigration policy in the WH)

As long as they can defend their side and then turn around and CLAIM "both sides do it."

It's no secret that Miller is a racist.  There has been "proof" of it for years.  This just solidifies it in his own words with insight into where he gets his ideas from.  And the WH trying to turn into an attack on a Jew is sad but not unexpected.  This WH is always the victim...despite being alleged tough guys.

The responses in here mirror the GOP defense for impeachment. The difference is, no one here is grandstanding for millions of party members, so I'm not sure what is gained by trying to suggest that the publications were not actually white supremacist publications. Everyone who is reading this thread got to read a break down of each that highlighted how they promote white supremacy.