Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Dida, Apr 11, 2017.
Amateur hour year.
So, we're saying that a lifetime political operative just "slipped up" and said something grotesquely anti-semitic during a white house press conference. This wasn't just some off the cuff bad thing to say, this was something that every person in politics is trained from day one will be a career ender. And "ooops, look what slipped out of Spicy accidentally there."
Let's take a look at how today's events are playing in the Stormfront/Breitbart axis of the alt-right, where what appeared to be unshakable loyalty to Trump was disintegrating under the "attack Syria for Israel" interpretation. Oh, hey...they think Spicy was sending them a message, and they're amused that stupid liberals are buying the forced apology as genuine. And their faith in Trump is restored. One little missile salvo with no followup just to throw some crumbs to the fools and we're right back on point with the mission.
I don't see how what Spicer said can be "grotesquely anti-Semitic." It's a dumb comment, hardly anti-Semitic, and certainly not grotesquely so.
Now back to the topic of what is Holocaust and what level of denial is problematic. What exactly is being alleged as part of Holocaust? And what part of that narrative, if any, can someone doubt without being considered a neo-nazi or nazi-sympathizer?
I don't see any evidence that Spicer is competent enough not to blurt out something like this. In context, he's clearly trying to say that even the Nazis did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield in WWII, which is mostly true; the claim that the Syrians did something even the Nazis refused to do is a grasping-at-straws justification to rationalize Trump's strike.
The counterargument that forcibly gassing millions of civilians is also a kind of chemical warfare probably just didn't occur to them. In context, it sounds like a talking point whipped up impromptu by Spicer or by some junior staffer an hour before the conference in order to justify the Syria strike (which was clearly done for domestic political reasons of course), without actually thinking about it how that would sound for more than three seconds.
Nothing about this administration shows any evidence of competence. There's plenty of malice they want to inflict, to be sure, but even most of the attempted malice (travel ban, repealing Obamacare and replacing it with crap) has been hampered by their own stupidity. Press conferences are gaffe magnets even for people who know what they are doing, and nobody at the current WH has shown any real ability to deal with the press besides calling them fake news and putting in alt-right bloggers and Breitbarters to pitch them softballs.
The total number of Breitbarters, Stormfronters and their ilk is high enough that they were important in ensuring Trump's primary victory and turning out for the general election, but they're pretty useless to the GOP at this point. By the time the midterms roll around, there may be some fake "gaffes" that are actually targeted appeals to bigots, but right now there's just no incentive for it.
No. With all due respect to the Jewish victims (which deserve every bit of our respect) what about the homosexuals, gypsies, other ethnic minorities that weren't Jewish, and those with 'inconvenient' political opinions (AKA daring to speak up against Hitler). Of course the Jewish victims shouldn't be forgotten, but let's extend that to all the other victims. Why not?
He should be fired, but for just being a generally crappy person, not for Holocaust denial. I don't think he was really trying to deny the Holocaust, I think he may have genuinely not been aware that the systematic murder of Jews involved the use of chemical weapons.
Most of the time, when people make a point of listing the other victims of the Nazi regime, it's to also imply that the Jews never really had it that bad and Hitler was awful to everyone.
Which, while technically true, ignores that many of the demographics Hitler was awful to all had a secondary purpose of perfecting the Final Solution, an "honour" reserved for Jewish people. They were sub-human and not desired in the perfect state model the Reich had envisioned, but ultimately were all serving a purpose towards wiping out the greater Jewish threat.
I actually hoe he keeps his job: the world may be more peaceful if idiots hold the PR positions. Given that the US is the nation usually starting the wars but the executive still needs some consent from the people, we can hope that staffing those positions with idiots will lead to a failure to drum up support to new wars and instead create a healthy skepticism about executive claims.
I guess it sucks for handling internal issues though.
Hitler also said the Russians were subhuman, among tons of others. Jews were NOT the only minority the nazis were trying to wipe out. If antisemites use this to promote jew hatred that can't be helped, but that doesn't make it wrong. If David Duke says the grass is green and the sky is blue, he would still be correct.
So he totally skipped all science classes? Or don't American schools in the places where he lived as a student teach basic chemistry?
I don't see what that has to do with what I said. A common secondary agenda when making a specific point does not guarantee that the agenda is present, only that it's commonly expressed. To go out of one's way to correct a Jewish organization that more than just Jews were affected by Hitler's regime is rarely done in good taste and most often done with anti-semitic intent.
I think he may not have paid attention in history class and wasn't aware of the methods the Nazis used to kill Jews. He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would pay attention to details like that.
its anti-semitic to mention the other 'sub-humans' murdered by the Nazis?
lets look at the title of that organization again:
The Anne Frank Center on Mutual Respect
Mutual respect means ignoring Hitler's non-Jewish victims?
Anne Frank is the poster child for Jewish oppression during WW2 outside of the concentration camps.
Nobody is saying to ignore Hitler's other victims. What people are saying is that it makes sense that a Jew-centric organization would refer to the Jews. Specifically taking issue with that is often done by anti-semites. Doubling down on pointing out that there were more than Jews afflicted by chemical weapons during the Reich's reign is an ill-advised hill to die on, primarily because it does not actually change anything about the message being conveyed by the organization in question or the greater point of the situation. Whether all demographics are listed or not, the fact remains that Spicer made an incompetent remark that is blatantly false.
They don't teach about the Holocaust in chemistry classes. And he knows Jews were gassed but just didn't think of that as use of chemical weapons cause he's stupid. It obviously counts, but he was thinking about it in the context of battlefields and was probably focusing on the delivery method as being the criterion for chemical "weapon." Like rockets and bombs with chemicals are chemical weapons to him.
Looked like Lex was trying to justify ignoring them
And you too... But I thought anti-semites denied the holocaust, now the term includes people who mention Hitler's other victims? By your logic, non-Jews shouldn't refer to Jews or the holocaust because they're non-Jews. And if its anti-semitic to ignore the Jewish holocaust, what is when all the other 'sub-humans' get ignored because mentioning them is anti-semitism? Is it mutual respect to ignore the other victims? Is it also anti-semitic to mention that millions of semites aint even Jewish? That has been suggested to me.
That isn't what I said. Please reread my posts.
Gases are made of chemicals. Note that I never mentioned history classes. I mentioned chemistry/science classes.
Wasn't that your explanation for why this organization - one with the goal of mutual respect - failed to mention Hitler's other victims?
When semites are accused of being anti-semitic for disliking Jews, isn't the accusation itself anti-semitic? I mean, the accusation requires redefining all those semites as something else, something they aren't. You're denying them their semitism. Not you, of course.
I have genuinely no idea what you are trying to say to me.
Anyways, Jewish people are more than capable of subscribing to the Judenhass bias.
Separate names with a comma.