Hillary on Bill's campaign manager: "f-ing Jew bastard".....

[calitennis127]

Is this what Moxie meant by being more inclusive toward Jewish-Americans?

And why was this never covered by the mainstream media in North America and Western Europe in the run-up to the election? You can guarantee that if Trump ever said it we would have heard about it repeatedly.

http://polidics.com/news/hillary-clintons-jew-bastard.html

 

[Asmodeus]

In Hillary's defense: no one really likes Jews. Though it seems that Muslims are quickly working to overtake first place.

 

[calitennis127]

In Hillary's defense: no one really likes Jews. Though it seems that Muslims are quickly working to overtake first place.

Yeah but if Trump had said it we would never have heard the end of charges that he was antisemitic.

 

[brokenshoelace]

In Hillary's defense: no one really likes Jews. Though it seems that Muslims are quickly working to overtake first place.

lol, what the fuck kind of "defense" is that?

 

[DarthFed]

^ The neo-Nazi Libertarian kind.

 

[mrzz]

C´mon, people, "not liking" is different from actual segregation and concentration camps. People everyday say things like "I don´t like New Yorkers", " I don´t like Italians" and so on and so forth. This is not neo-nazi. This is the way people speak, and they are entitled to their preferences.

There are a lot of historical reasons for one etnichal group or another being seen in a given - generally stereotyped - fashion. Nowadays people associate Muslims with terror. Human brain associate things and search for general rules. Obviously this general rule is wrong for 99,99% of the Muslims. And people could very well blame them for not being able to control this minority... I disagree, but can I crucify the regular Joe who thinks like that? I guess not.

The posts above simply acknowledge this fact. They are in a very dangerous language, I´ll surely give you that. It doesn´t help, I also agree. But, honestly, the reaction (which I understand) of labeling it Neo-Nazi is not only false, but it doesn´t help either.

 

[brokenshoelace]

C´mon, people, "not liking" is different from actual segregation and concentration camps. People everyday say things like "I don´t like New Yorkers", " I don´t like Italians" and so on and so forth. This is not neo-nazi. This is the way people speak, and they are entitled to their preferences.r.

Neo-Nazis aren't putting anyone in concentration camps. In fact, they even deny the holocaust. Their ideology is focused on, among other things, racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. And not liking people simply based on religion, ethnicity, etc... is definitely racist. It's partially the definition of racism.

So your post is a bit misguided.

 

[Federberg]

Neo-Nazis aren't putting anyone in concentration camps. In fact, they even deny the holocaust. Their ideology is focused on, among other things, racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. And not liking people simply based on religion, ethnicity, etc... is definitely racist. It's partially the definition of racism.

So your post is a bit misguided.

I have to agree. This year seems to be like living in an "end of history" world. Suddenly it's ok to "not like" Jews or Muslims. This is very sad to me. I'll take individuals on a person to person basis. To dislike an entire race or religion is racist on its face, this isn't about being "pc" it's just text book!

I can only hope that people on this forum, when they actually meet individuals are open minded enough to make their judgements then...

 

[mrzz]

Good point. But remember neo-nazis are not putting people on concentration camps because they can´t, not because they wouldn´t. The two gentlemen above use strong words, one of them is not exactly the best diplomat I've seen, but they are not neo-nazis. I know this was a figure of speech from Twisted, but it is as dangerous as their own language.

And not liking people simply based on religion, ethnicity, etc... is definitely racist

Most times "not liking people" means "not liking some given customs or attitudes".

Also, it depends on how you read "not liking people". Given that I am not a native english speaker (and please, always feel completely free to correct me on this), I might be seeing more shades in this expression that are actually there. It could mean something from "feeling uncomfortable with", "not agreeing with" and so on and so forth. It is not necessarily "uncontrollable hate".

People indeed do not control what they feel. If you forbid them to express it, it is a very good recipe to create hatred.

I admitted from the start that this was an expression that I wouldn´t use, precisely because it is vague enough to open this door (that is, it can be understood as simple hatred). But the attitude of labeling anyone who uses it as a "racist, xenophobic and et cetera is a prejudice of the exact same proportion. There are xenophobic people who would say just that, I know. But there are Muslims who are terrorists. Generalization is wrong in both cases.

So your quote above is almost perfectly right, but it misses what for me is the small little twist that defines racism, which is to associate one characteristic to another.

In my book this is different to openly admit that a given custom is (for a given person) unpleasant. "I do not like people who lend money with interest". Okay, that´s your problem. Live with that, don´t break any laws, don´t segregate people and everything is fine.

You surely already understood where I want to arrive, but anyway I´ll repeat it: repression leads to hatred. I have long hair and I am a huge heavy metal fan. I rather have people not liking me for it than hating me. It is a petty comparison I know, but once you forbid people to say they don´t like it, forbid them to knock on my door to complain about the volume, and maybe in a year they´ll ring my bell with a loaded shotgun on their hands.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Most times "not liking people" means "not liking some given customs or attitudes".

But that's a different premise. Not liking an ideology =/= automatically not liking someone because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc... Case in point, and I don't mean to offend anyone, but there are a number of things in Islam that I find absolutely reprehensible, on an ideological level. That doesn't give me the right to go "I don't like Muslims" and act like that's OK. I know the line can get blurry but the moment we lose sight of that (and we have) is the moment the world ends up in the state it currently is in.

Likewise, I find the Catholic church's stance on sex, homosexuality, abortion, among other things to be outrageous. But if I were to dislike Catholics accordingly, that would be a different thing entirely.

 

[mrzz]

It seems that we are getting down to semantics. But first, you make a valid point differentiating ideological to personal levels, but, as you say, things can get very blurry. For example, a very religious person could "not like" atheists. This could be simple prejudice, yes, but could also be completely honest. He simply finds that he cannot like them exactly because they do not believe in god. What do we do? Force him to like them?

So (also answering to Federberg above): Yes, "not liking" is ok. In your first paragraph, you aptly described prejudice, and in this sense I agree with you completely. Prejudice is not ok. Hate and segregation are also "not ok". But I am insisting in the fact that we have two different issues here. I am sure you think I am splitting hairs. Here´s why I don´t think so:

I mentioned semantics because you are clearly reading the expression as prejudice, while I am reading it differently. So, back to the phrase that originated it all:

"no one really likes Jews"

This is racist in the sense that it uses a word that describes an entire people in a sentence with negative connotation (so, yes, I am agreeing with you). It is general, so it goes down to the individual. That´s why I would not use that kind of sentence (as I said above), specially starting with "I".

But "not like" is not "hate", is not "should be dead". This would be neo-nazi.

All I am trying to say is that this very phrase could have an, as you say, ideological meaning, as I strongly suspect it was the intent. On one hand, I like this discussion because I respect language, and I give value to the actual meaning of words and phrases -- we want to communicate properly. On the other, I hate the ideological police that gives determined connotation and meaning to words, and labels the ones who use them. Again, lines are blurry. I jumped in "defense" (that no one asked) because quickly we arrived to "neo-nazi". I do not think the poster who wrote it falls in that category.

 

[Asmodeus]

Placing mrzz's clam reasoning and arguments aside (he seemed the only rational one in this debate), don't you Libtards know when you are being trolled?

Face the facts, most of you are troll bait who do my bidding. I am your master and there's nothing you can do about it. In one sentence I can ruin your day; two sentences, your week. With an entire paragraph you will likely face an existential meltdown that will turn your brain to mush. After you all accept this fact and become my servant, only then can you free yourself from the folly of your pedestrian thinking.

Bow down to me now, weak Libtards.

 

[Federberg]

 

[Federberg]

If that was all in jest then fair play

Out of curiosity, what's your definition of a liberal?

 

[mrzz]

^In that case I am as guilty as anyone else.

In fact, all this got me thinking... I jumped in defense so quickly, exactly the way PC people (sorry guys) jump when they see a word they don´t like. Debate always shows you something, even a very unpleasant one (I over-reacted to a jest-troll post in a PC-like manner). Ugh. I hate you guys.

 

[britbox]

If that was all in jest then fair play

Out of curiosity, what's your definition of a liberal?

It seems to mean different things in different countries from what I can see. The Liberal Party in Australia is basically a Conservative Party. Yet, in the US the term seems to be loosely used the other way around.

 

[DarthFed]

Placing mrzz's clam reasoning and arguments aside (he seemed the only rational one in this debate), don't you Libtards know when you are being trolled?

Face the facts, most of you are troll bait who do my bidding. I am your master and there's nothing you can do about it. In one sentence I can ruin your day; two sentences, your week. With an entire paragraph you will likely face an existential meltdown that will turn your brain to mush. After you all accept this fact and become my servant, only then can you free yourself from the folly of your pedestrian thinking.

Bow down to me now, weak Libtards.

My post calling you a neo-Nazi Libertarian was clearly in jest too. Now keep dancing with that deep thinking of yours puppet.

 

[mrzz]

^WHAT?! I got fooled by TWO posts!!! So I could not recognize an in jest reply to an in jest original post? That´s squared jest!! Argh! I double hate you all, and I will spend my time now thinking on how can I offend you all.

 

[mrzz]

It seems to mean different things in different countries from what I can see. The Liberal Party in Australia is basically a Conservative Party. Yet, in the US the term seems to be loosely used the other way around.

Good point. This particular confusion seems to come from the use of "Liberal" in an economical sense (as I guess it is the custom in Europe). In fact, far left people in South-America use to deem everything they don´t like as "neo-liberal" (again in economical sense). It seems that in US people used liberal in a pure political sense (as opposed to Conservative), and with time it blurred also to "liberal" in a sociological sense (which is obviously connected but not exactly the same thing).

All this is a symptom of the huge conceptual confusion we see world wide. The words "left" and "right" hardly have any meaning left (and it is funny to remember that those words, in a political sense, started precisely with no meaning, referring only to sides each party would take on the French parliament). I say that meaning is lost because in different parts of the world you see political movements go from left to right while navigating from political, social and economical issues. As a South American, I can not help but at least smile every time I see you guys describe the Democratic Party as "left".

At least here everyone is educated enough to know that those words can have dozens of different meanings, so the whole labeling debate is pointless from the get go, saving us the shame of quickly jumping from labeling to name calling and...

oh, wait...

 

[Federberg]

Yup. The compulsive need to label a viewpoint as left or right, liberal or reactionary has always seemed a bit weak to me. Personally I pick and choose what views I like from all the parties. It is practically impossible in the real world for any political party to fulfil all of the views on any one individual. But there does seem to be a tribalistic need to be part of a political group these days and swallow all the nonsense wholesale. That's ok, but maybe I'm old school, it's not for me. In the UK I agree with a lot of the economic policies of the Conservative party but then I strongly disagree with a lot of the social policies. I'm not going to sit there and accept or pretend that it's ok if a Labour party supporter offers a reasonable critique of the offending policy. That strikes me as intellectually dishonest.

I think I've said it before, but I would probably be more comfortable associating with Libertarianism. I believe governments should be as minimalist as possible both in the economic sphere and in the social sphere. I don't want a government spending my hard earned money, nor do I want to impose my values on anyone else. As long as people obey the law (which I would hope is a reasonable law), then I really don't care what they get up to in the privacy of their own homes