Steve King: How did white supremacist become offensive?

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 04:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump is calling on her to resign.

Well of course he is!  As national leader and role model, he is using his bully pulpit to quash divisive racist behavior, especially ethnic slurs from people who migrated here from shithole countries.

Antisemtism motivated the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter to stop Jews from sheltering Central American immigrants. Let's not forget that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 04:05 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmm.  I don't doubt you've been told that agreeing with a racist policy makes you a racist. How could someone say "I agree that blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to vote--but I'm not racist"?

I see you've been taking lessons with Fred, because that's not at all what I said.  You know this of course.  Did you think this deliberate misinterpretation of my statement was clever or something?

Quote:But I've never heard anyone on this board say a policy is racist for no other reason than that a racist agrees with it. Perhaps someone actually has, or perhaps you are inferring that from someone who notes how certain of Trump's policies garner support from racists.  

Sure, just like you never see anyone accusing another of bring a Trump supporter even when the accused states they are not.  For someone who peruses this sub-forum all the time you miss an awful lot.

Quote:But you are adopting that definition now?  And that's how you conclude "a not insignificant number" oppose the bill (as you do) because they are antisemitic?  Just making sure I understand.

Oh wait, are you claiming they aren't people who support BDS because they are antisemetic?  If that's the case then let me know so I can stop going back and forth with someone who is delusional.

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 07:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: Hmmm.  I don't doubt you've been told that agreeing with a racist policy makes you a racist. How could someone say "I agree that blacks are inferior and should not be allowed to vote--but I'm not racist"?

I see you've been taking lessons with Fred, because that's not at all what I said.  You know this of course.  Did you think this deliberate misinterpretation of my statement was clever or something?

Well no, it's not a "deliberate misinterpretation" of what you said because it's not what I am saying you said. 

Nuance level 3. I am setting up a base contrast for my next point there, about your unsupported claim that some in this forum have argued that having a racist agree with a policy makes it racist. 

The statement you call a "misinterpretation" presumes clear agreement between us, among everyone really, then moves on to question of whether anyone has actually maintained the inverse--that racist agreement makes a policy racist.  

(02-12-2019, 07:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But I've never heard anyone on this board say a policy is racist for no other reason than that a racist agrees with it. Perhaps someone actually has, or perhaps you are inferring that from someone who notes how certain of Trump's policies garner support from racists. 

Sure, just like you never see anyone accusing another of bring a Trump supporter even when the accused states they are not.  For someone who peruses this sub-forum all the time you miss an awful lot.

So you are just saying "Oh yes you have."  You are not going to provide an example, or maybe you are offering an example of something else regarding Trump support, another topic, to stand in as your example. 

(02-12-2019, 07:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But you are adopting that definition now?  And that's how you conclude "a not insignificant number" oppose the bill (as you do) because they are antisemitic?  Just making sure I understand.

Oh wait, are you claiming they aren't people who support BDS because they are antisemetic?  If that's the case then let me know so I can stop going back and forth with someone who is delusional.

LOL can you string two sentences together free of ad hominem?  

First of all, I was making sure I understood you before I said anything further.  Are you adopting the definition you criticize to make your point?  That's a question, not a claim.
You are free to duck the question. Go silent. Or cover the duck as a refusal to deal with the "delusional." That will fool everyone.
But if you throw out a red herring I'll call it.

The final option is to answer. No more smoke.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-12-2019, 08:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Well no, it's not a "deliberate misinterpretation" of what you said because it's not what I am saying you said. 

Nuance level 3. I am setting up a base contrast for my next point there, about your claim that some in this forum have argued that having a racist agree with a policy makes it racist. 

The statement you call a "misinterpretation" presumes clear agreement between us, among everyone really, then moves on to question of whether anyone has actually maintained the inverse--that racist agreement makes a policy racist.

I'm really stupid, my apologies, because it's not at all clear that's what you were doing.  

Quote:So you are just saying "Oh yes you have."  You are not going to provide an example, or maybe you are offering an example of something else regarding Trump support, another topic, to stand in as your example. 

I've literally pointed out numerous occasions, you always claim to not know what I'm talking about when I do it.  I'll do you a favor though, I'll point these out to you every time they occur as well.  Please do us the kindness of remembering this so I don't have to explain what I'm doing every time.

Quote:LOL can you string two sentences together free of ad hominem?  

When having a discussion with you it is admittedly difficult.

Quote:First of all, I was making sure I understood you before I said anything further.  Are you adopting the definition you criticize to make your point?  That's a question, not a claim.
You are free to duck the question. Go silent. Or cover the duck as a refusal to deal with the "delusional." That will fool everyone.
But if you throw out a red herring I'll call it.

The final option is to answer.

You're offering a false "this or that" option.  I have not said that BDS is inherently racist or that believing in it makes one a racist.  I have said, nuance level 14.87, that Omar's motivation for supporting it is very clearly rooted in anti-Semitism.  I literally can't think of a simpler, nuance level 0, way to put this.

[*bfine32*]

(02-12-2019, 04:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Trump is calling on her to resign.

Of course she should not be required/asked to resign. Now I do think it is rational to suggest she step down from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Hell, she's just a Freshman; she'll learn and that education has already started. 

[GMDino]

(02-12-2019, 08:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course she should not be required/asked to resign. Now I do think it is rational to suggest she step down from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Hell, she's just a Freshman; she'll learn and that education has already started. 

Are you suggesting that you "hope she learned a lesson"?!?!?!?

[*bfine32*]

(02-12-2019, 08:35 PM)GMDino Wrote: Are you suggesting that you "hope she learned a lesson"?!?!?!?

I am suggesting it. I hope folks can use their mistakes as teaching points everyday. Of course that has 0 to do with the false equivalency that you have used to amuse yourself. But I get why you do it and sadly it is often ignored, excused, or even applauded. 

[GMDino]

(02-12-2019, 08:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I am suggesting it. I hope folks can use their mistakes as teaching points everyday. Of course that has 0 to do with the false equivalency that you have used to amuse yourself. But I get why you do it and sadly it is often ignored, excused, or even applauded. 

It has EVERYTHING to do with what that phrase means and how it upset you to have be said to your boy Trump.

Clearly you understand the phrase but had to play the "slur" card because DJT was involved.

You're funny.

[Dill]

(02-12-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm really stupid, my apologies, because it's not at all clear that's what you were doing.  

Some 2,500-year-old advice:

1. Understand that some arguments DEVELOP; they establish a common ground which needs no proving to move more securely to claims do need proving. Learn then to see arguments as a whole, a set of inter-related statements. Not quip-ready soundbites.

2. It is easy to misunderstand arguments, especially political arguments. If you are not sure what a person is saying, it's best to offer your own paraphrase and ask your interlocutor if you got it right before proceeding.

3. If you think someone has misrepresented your position, it is also better check if, perhaps, you were misunderstood, then explain or show how you think you were misunderstood, before rushing to call someone a "liar." (General advice for future reference. Not saying you called someone a liar in the previous post.)  

My own observation: Sometimes people do lie; some individuals lie all the time. But bad reasoners/writers see "liars" and "hypcrites" everywhere.  Work to understand another's language/argument first before going on about lies and deliberate misrepresentation/misunderstanding/obfuscation/delusion and the like. 

(02-12-2019, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote: Wrote:So you are just saying "Oh yes you have."  You are not going to provide an example, or maybe you are offering an example of something else regarding Trump support, another topic, to stand in as your example. 

I've literally pointed out numerous occasions, you always claim to not know what I'm talking about when I do it.  I'll do you a favor though, I'll point these out to you every time they occur as well.  Please do us the kindness of remembering this so I don't have to explain what I'm doing every time.

LOL The problem is you don't want to explain ANYTIME if that means supporting your claims with evidence   You can definitely prove you have "pointed" many times.  But it's support that is the issue, not the "pointing."

But perhaps you do not really know what I mean by "support" for a claim?  Or perhaps you do.  You asked me to prove my claim that you said I was an ISIS supporter. I didn't simply repeat "you've done it on numerous occasions" or you are delusional if you deny it. I quoted and cited, thread and post, the places where you have done it.  So you are familiar enough with this standard to demand it of others.  

But when I ask you to do the same, you only repeat the claim or insist its truth is obvious and the examples are everywhere and the problem is somehow with me for not accepting it without proof.  And that's why you don't want to "explain what you are doing every time."  You don't want to explain ANYTIME if that requires evidence/proof of your claim. 

In this case you are asked to provide an example of someone calling a policy racist simply because racists support it. That should be very easy if you have pointed it out on "numerous occasions."   But instead of providing even one example, you, again, just continue to say you have already pointed out many.  Which thread? Which post? Who wrote it?  I'd like to look at those examples to make sure we are seeing the same thing. Perhaps I will agree. Or perhaps those examples are strawmen.  Perhaps they don't even exist.

And you were asked if YOU were adopting the above-mentioned standard yourself, in your assessment of BDS supporters like Omar.   That's another reason why I'd like to see an example of what you have pointed out numerous times, what you "don't want to explain every time"--or even once apparently. And that is a QUESTION, not a false either/or OPTION.

[fredtoast]

(02-12-2019, 08:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  she'll learn and that education has already started. 

Can we please put an end to all this dishonorable divisive rhetoric.

 

[Belsnickel]

This is the start of a thread:

I really wish this had happened back in 2016 when the president’s supporters were sending death threats to Jewish reporters. https://t.co/9epROftO2C

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

[GMDino]

(02-14-2019, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the start of a thread:

I really wish this had happened back in 2016 when the president’s supporters were sending death threats to Jewish reporters. https://t.co/9epROftO2C

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

But I thought someone established that the reporter "provoked" people into doing it? 

Besides, it's not like Jewish people are the most bullied people in the world.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-14-2019, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the start of a thread:

I really wish this had happened back in 2016 when the president’s supporters were sending death threats to Jewish reporters. https://t.co/9epROftO2C

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

Were the threats because they were reporters?  If so then this tweet is nonsensical.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2019, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Were the threats because they were reporters?  If so then this tweet is nonsensical.

See it's okay to make anti semitic threats if there is another "reason" for it.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2019, 10:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is the start of a thread:

I really wish this had happened back in 2016 when the president’s supporters were sending death threats to Jewish reporters. https://t.co/9epROftO2C

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

The First Lady said that Julia provoked those death threats by reporting on Melania's half brother. Apparently it's only an issue once it is aimed at the people who they feel are political allies. Until then, we get messages like "good people on both sides" and "provoked".

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2019, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Were the threats because they were reporters?  If so then this tweet is nonsensical.

Julia was sent images of Jews being killed, was photoshopped onto concentration camp photos, was called and played recordings of Hitler, and called a k*** by the Daily Stormer.

This was because she reported on Melania’s half brother.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-14-2019, 11:56 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Julia was sent images of Jews being killed, was photoshopped onto concentration camp photos, was called and played recordings of Hitler, and called a k*** by the Daily Stormer.

This was because she reported on Melania’s half brother.

So there was antisemitism involved.  Yes, that should be called out as well.  I'm very pleased to hear that none of these antisemitic statements came from an elected official.  As for the Daily Stormer, it's a Nazi website, them calling anyone who isn't white a racial slur is hardly surprising, it's why they exist.  For those that need the explanation, that doesn't mean it's ok, it just means it's exactly what you'd expect from them.  

[Vas Deferens]

anti-semitism <> anti-isreal

the two have been intentionally convoluted for far too long.

[GMDino]

(02-14-2019, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So there was antisemitism involved.  Yes, that should be called out as well.  I'm very pleased to hear that none of these antisemitic statements came from an elected official.  As for the Daily Stormer, it's a Nazi website, them calling anyone who isn't white a racial slur is hardly surprising, it's why they exist.  For those that need the explanation, that doesn't mean it's ok, it just means it's exactly what you'd expect from them.  

(02-14-2019, 11:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Were the threats because they were reporters?  If so then this tweet is nonsensical.

[Belsnickel]

(02-14-2019, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So there was antisemitism involved.  Yes, that should be called out as well.  I'm very pleased to hear that none of these antisemitic statements came from an elected official.  As for the Daily Stormer, it's a Nazi website, them calling anyone who isn't white a racial slur is hardly surprising, it's why they exist.  For those that need the explanation, that doesn't mean it's ok, it just means it's exactly what you'd expect from them.  

Expand the thread.

Or when Trump told the Republican Jewish Coalition, “I don’t want your money.” https://t.co/wScdd6kWtR

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

Or when he lied about tweeting a Star of David plastered over money and said it was a reference to Frozen reference. Or sheriffs. https://t.co/p7DwYR9QEq

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

Or when House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy tweeted an anti-Semitic tweet, implying prominent Jews were buying the midterm elections. https://t.co/KgUHAXZhYS

— Julia Ioffe (@juliaioffe) February 13, 2019

She didn't mention Steve King, the reason for this thread, and his anti-semitic statements, but he also has a history of it.