Do people who aren’t racist focus on your ethnicity when they’re looking to criticize your professional work?
Do you believe pointing out someone’s ethnicity/religion is a valid rebuttal of their arguments?
Do you believe pointing out someone’s ethnicity/religion is a valid rebuttal of their arguments?
Or..... Just jump to pitchforks!
More of that exchange if you do want context instead of pitchforks...
[2016-08-23 01:21:32] <WISE Up Action> Satter is desperately trying to make smoke.
[2016-08-23 03:01:11] <M> Interesting to look through his past tweets re WL. He covered Saudi Cables when they came out, but I didn’t see any mention of personal info concerns (however, I only skimmed his tweets). He seemed to turn against WL after AKP, DNC and has attacked them since.
[2016-08-23 03:11:41] <M> Also note that he is trying to make this a new, recent story (“in the past year”) but Saudi Cables where 95% of claims stem from are over a year old.
[2016-08-23 04:46:09] <WikiLeaks> He’s always ben a rat.
[2016-08-23 04:46:27] <WikiLeaks> But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.
[2016-08-23 05:28:35] <WikiLeaks> http://Govwaste.co.uk*
[2016-08-23 05:35:50] <Emmy B> surprising I don’t see any archived links from there, I thought I had archived some pages*
[2016-08-23 06:04:49] <Emmy B> Last wayback machine capture: https://web.archive.org/web/20160811212406/http://govwaste.c...
[2016-08-23 07:23:25] <M> Looking into it*
[2016-08-23 09:15:15] <WISE Up Action> Satter is keeping going in general and wide-ranging attacks on WL /JA
[2016-08-23 12:58:54] <WikiLeaks> Bog him down. Get him to show statements of his bias.
[2016-08-23 13:03:28] <WikiLeaks> He’s the son of David Satter, who is mentioned in our cables. DS is a senior member of the Hudson institute and a well known Russia basher and NSA apologist. He was expelled from Russia in 2008 and 2014. Rafael grew up in Washington DC
So... is WL being racist? No, it doesn't seem it. Is WL using ((())) in any sort of racist way? No, not at all. What is wrong with some of you? Please leave your nonsense at Reddit.
1) Where is this magical context you keep pointing towards? 2) How is his ethnicity related to the article he wrote? 3) How is this not judging this reporter solely on the basis of his ethnicity?
I understand you may have a preference for not calling anyone or anything racist regardless of the circumstances, but I work differently. I’m more than willing to reevaluate the context if given more information, but you seem to be telling me that it’s fine to judge reporters work by their ethnicity, irregardless of whether that ethnicity is related to the subject matter at hand.
No, but one might refer to such slang, you just did it yourself, and nothing more can be seen in those particular tweets.
> [2016-08-23 04:46:27] <WikiLeaks> But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.
then please provide a source to that other thing, who you are referring to with "he", and maybe a reason for not making what you are referring to more clear as well.
It's also very nice that because of the barrage of downvotes, or maybe moderator action, I can't respond 13 minutes after you posted your comment when I actually had finished this reply, but have to keep the tab open and submit later... so I'll respond to another comment here as well:
> Do you consider referring to racism to be the same as being racist?
No I don't, which was my point. Saying "$someone is Jewish and engaged with the ((())) issue" isn't using that dog whistle, but referring to it. Without context it's really hard to judge why the Jewishness is mentioned; I don't know what the ((())) issue refers to in that specific context, what "engaged with" means, nothing. Could easily be bad, could be benign, but the claim was they "used" ((())), and that's false. Even if they're actually antisemites, they did not use the brackets in that tweet from 2016-08-23 04:46:27. Fact.
I mean, calling him also a "rat" kind of makes it moot in a way, that's not good, antisemitism or not. But if they are antisemitic, I want more than hearsay and being sloppy about something like "referring to X" and "using X". This is not acceptable. For one because it would be important in light of WL, but even more importantly because of antisemitism.
Generally, that some antisemites might like WL would never surprise me. With almost anything that criticizes society and the powerful in it, you often can find antisemites who are superficially interested in the subject so they can re-route it to Jews being the root of all problems. So in a vacuum, tweets "at" WL that seem antisemitic are to be expected -- the question is how WL deals with them, and what they themselves put out. I do not consider that question settled, mind you, but those who raise it, and those who approach it, have no right to be this sloppy.
Remember when that Google guy was fired and people said he "posted a memo to the internet"? He posted a memo in an internal discussion group devoted to the issue he posted about, and others leaked it on the net. Yet the lie is still out there in people's heads. And that wouldn't be acceptable even if he was a total red pill chauvinist. When it was cool to be dishonest about Jews, to exclude them inevitably leading to violence against them, some people did that. Now it's cool to be dishonest about and violent to Jews in some milieus, sexists, racists or antisemites in others -- as if the methods don't matter at all, just who wins, as if using certain methods doesn't make you something, too. Or to put a very sharp point on it, as if putting racists into concentration camps would actually end once you killed all racists, as if it could.
The “He’s always ben a rat. But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue” bit is clearly intended to both impugn his character and suggest that he is influential because he is Jewish and actively engaged in anti-anti-semitism.
So, yeah, I'm going to say that sending a message that amounts to “He’s a rat, but particularly dangerous because he’s a Jew rat engaged against anti-Semitism” is pretty starkly anti-Semitic.
Not everyone agrees with that characterization of the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but to smear anyone even mentioning the conflict as anti-semitic is dishonest and partisan.