Has any George Soros conspiracy theory ever panned out? Hearing his name come up is a bright red flag that the person you're talking to has had his brain poisoned by right wing nutjobs.
That being said, I have no sympathy for billionaires who act in an activist way (be that right or left leaning)
I don't understand what you're so skeptical about. What is the standard of evidence for antisemitism you're seeking? I'm not going to find many mainstream adherents to Soros conspiracy theories that are going to flat-out admit it, am I?
I suppose a good counter example would be liberal jewish billionaires being attacked despite not contributing to liberal philanthropic endeavors. Or non-jewish liberal billionaire philanthropists NOT being attacked despite contributing on the same scale as George Soros.
I'm just saying that the "George Soros is only being targeted because he's jewish" argument is a shitty cop out.
You are moving the goalposts. You first asked why only Soros was being targeted and not other liberal, Jewish billionaires. That was proven false (Bloomberg, Steyer also targeted) and now you are trying out a new line of reasoning that is just as thin.
How I am moving the goalposts? The initial comment I replied to was "There's a reason why George Soros is singled out among liberal billionaires by certain right wing groups, and it certainly isn't evidence.", which I think I correctly interpreted as claiming that Soros was only being targeted for being jewish.
> That was proven false (Bloomberg, Steyer also targeted)
I've never heard of this Steyer guy, I know Bloomberg and I'm not aware that he's banned from Hungary, or that he has a dedicated wikipedia page to "Bloomberg conspiracy theories", so I don't think he can be remotely compared to Soros.
So yeah I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
"why George Soros and not other liberal jewish billionaires, who no doubt exist?"
Evidence was provided to prove that other liberal Jewish billionaires have, in fact, been targeted.
> I've never heard of this Steyer guy, I know Bloomberg and I'm not aware that he's banned from Hungary, or that he has a dedicated wikipedia page to "Bloomberg conspiracy theories", so I don't think he can be remotely compared to Soros.
This is more goalpost moving. Nobody claimed they were targeted more than Soros or that you knew who they were. None of that changes the fact that they are liberal, Jewish billionaires who have been targeted. This is the criteria you created.
Bill Gates.
Haha, the Rothchild family would like a word about 'not being targeted'. The term "international bankers" is of course, famously, anti-semitic loon code for "jewish illuminanti".
If you think Soros is only singled out for his political views, the Soros-obsessed nut who just shot up a synagogue might also have a word with you.
> Color of Change is a not-for-profit civil rights organization. It receives some money from Soros
It's remarkably bold to suggest that every "conspiracy theory" about Soros is nonsense in response to an article that explicitly says that the claims his critics made about him were true.
He is definitely not a fan of the way social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market, but that doesn't mean you can ignore criticism of said social media companies.
But the narrative that Facebook's PR firm is pushing is that you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings. It's a dog whistle.
> he's in their offices every week telling them how to attack Zuckerburg
> you should ignore criticism of Facebook because it's just George Soros pulling the strings
I didn't say any of these things, nor does this Guardian article quote Facebook or their PR company as having ever, at any point in history, said anything that even implies a single one of these positions. Either you have some other source, in which case I invite you to share it, or you are criticizing a perspective entirely of your own invention.
> advocates for minority rights
> social media turns people's lives into a product to be sold on the open market
None of this has anything to do with my comment.
Or at least, that's what I interpreted the parent comment that I originally replied to as characterizing as a "conspiracy theory". I didn't see what else it could mean given that that (according to the article, true) claim is literally the only claim about Soros that the article says Facebook's PR company made.