08-19-2019, 03:14 PM
(08-19-2019, 01:02 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't have a "premise" in that post, other than providing background information, including rationales stated by other parties.
To frame someone who does that as an "Islamic apologist" is the equivalent of framing any neutral explanation of a Trump policy as an apology for white nationalism.
Sorry, not buying an equation between drawing Muhammed and mocking the industrial scale murder of millions. You're attempting to mitigate this, hence the accusation of being an apologist. There isn't a neutral explanation or excuse for this.
Quote:It is a frame which recognizes no neutral analysis, only condemnation or endorsement--you are doing one or the other. So if you are not condemning "Islam" then you are endorsing. (Again, see my post #35 above and the link in post #55 for more clarification about this style of "argument.")
In this case this is appropriate. There isn't a "neutral ground" for mocking the industrial scale murder of millions. Your comparison is offensive on its face.
Quote:Also, "Anti-Semitic tropes" are not the criterion here.
Do you have a link to any national newspaper publishing cartoons joking about the Holocaust? That would shut these Iranians up.
Except mocking the murder of millions isn't remotely comparable to drawing a picture of a dude. You're attempting to mitigate that which should be condemned without exception.
(08-19-2019, 02:14 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I do when I’m in the US and that is exactly what their lobbyists are trying to take away. My and my fellow citizens rights. In the name of another country’s political objectives.
I doubt someone who believes in the constitution as much you would allow for a foreign entity to dictate its application.
I would absolutely object to that, but that isn't what's happening here. Neither Israel or anyone else is trying to "silence" Omar or Tlaib. Israel refused entry to two people who are openly hostile to the nation. This is not a violation of anyone's constitutional rights. I don't agree with it, I think it does make them seem afraid of criticism, but I'm not going to call it something it's not.
(08-19-2019, 03:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: This implies she knew the cartoonist was involved with the contest.
Yeah, get into the DeLorean and take it up to 88 back to when I made this exact point already. If she didn't know she should have known as based on her history she's not going to get the benefit of the doubt. I recall you making similar arguments about Trump and who he retweets. Selective outrage?
Quote:So it would be guilt by association. Of course you believe she is an anti-semite because of her words about the country of Israel too.
Yes, she apologized for using anti-Semitic language but continues to engage in similar actions. I believe she is an anti-Semite based on her own words.
Quote:Just seeing where you were coming from.
It's been the same argument since it was first made. I don't understand how you could be confused.
