How does Trayon White still have a job?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moderate Jew here who hates Trump. White is an anti-semite and I don't understand why anyone is giving him the time of day. if that is what Ward 8 wants to support, then the people in need in Ward 8 who have been the beneficiaries of countless hours of donated time and lots of donated money to support education, workforce development and create jobs and grow investment in the Ward 8 community can look elsewhere for that kind of support.

Being a Jew doesn't make you an authority on what constitutes anti Semitism and just because you've decided that an individual is anti Semite doesn't make him one . Ward 8 residents are here to stay .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

I am not the immediate PP. But, I do think it is certainly possible that JUFJ was (a) selective in who they spoke to about the event and/or (b) selectively shared what was recounted to them about the event.

You seem to be accepting that the reporter was lying, or at least quite biased in the events he/she recounted. Why do you seem to think this is possible from the reporter, but not JUFJ?

Obviously any person or org can be biased, but I would tend (other things being equal) to trust a WaPo reporter rather than an organization with a clear agenda -- whether that be JUFJ or some conservative organization.

I find it quite interesting how here it seems to be the left (and I am no conservative) crying about fake news from the main stream media.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

And here we have what I was talking about. Me, the Jew, is causing harm by objecting to White's repeated display of antisemitisim toward Jews. How DARE I describe White as an antisemite? How DARE I take offense that a man, who already had it pointed out to him that his Rothschild conspiracy theory was antisemitic then compound it and walk out on the Holocaust tour? You defend the Democrat who makes repeated shows of negativity toward Jews, and attack the Jew upset with it. (And as you know, I'm not the only one on this thread who has expressed concern with rising antisemtitsm on the left.)

And why are you switching it around as to whether this makes me more understanding of POC? What is it up to ME to be understanding of a black man who repeatedly shows blatant disregard to Jews? Why do you not ask for black people to understand the Jewish point in all this, since it was "one of their own" who advanced an antisemtitic theory and demonstrated a WGAF attitude toward the Holocaust?

Reminds me of that old song.....Protestants blame the Catholics, Catholics blame the Lutherans, Lutherans blame the Mormons, and everyone blames the Jews.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

Lying through ommission, yes. They have an obvious agenda, and they pick and choose what to report to advance it.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

I am not the immediate PP. But, I do think it is certainly possible that JUFJ was (a) selective in who they spoke to about the event and/or (b) selectively shared what was recounted to them about the event.

You seem to be accepting that the reporter was lying, or at least quite biased in the events he/she recounted. Why do you seem to think this is possible from the reporter, but not JUFJ?

Obviously any person or org can be biased, but I would tend (other things being equal) to trust a WaPo reporter rather than an organization with a clear agenda -- whether that be JUFJ or some conservative organization.

I find it quite interesting how here it seems to be the left (and I am no conservative) crying about fake news from the main stream media.

One of the fallacies of conservatives is their belief that the "mainstream media" is liberal. The mainstream media is corporate and its biases are toward the status quo. Ask Bernie Sanders how he feels about the mainstream media.

The Washington Post has a very troubling history in its coverage of local politics. By necessity the reporter was selective in his reporting. He obviously couldn't, and didn't, report very second of the tour. I can't believe that would even be a question in your mind. For whatever reason, the reporter concentrated on making White and his staff look like dunderheads or worse. All you have to do is read the article to understand why White would have been upset by the reporter's presence. How would you feel about being accompanied by someone you believed was going to make you look bad (and subsequently did exactly that)? Therefore, it is easy to believe the scenario presented by the JUFJ. On the other hand, what evidence is there to suggest that White left because of anti-Semitism? The Washington Post doesn't even make that allegation.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

Lying through ommission, yes. They have an obvious agenda, and they pick and choose what to report to advance it.

That's exactly what the Washington Post did. Do you really think the Post article was unbiased?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

Lying through ommission, yes. They have an obvious agenda, and they pick and choose what to report to advance it.

Did JUFJ actually quote anyone specifically? What I recall from the statement was something to the effect of "We talked to a bunch of people at the event . . . " A statement like that is incredibly vague and easy to manipulate. If they said, Rabbi A said X, and lay leader B said Y, etc, it would be more credible. (Maybe there are more specific statements with attribution that I haven't seen.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

Lying through ommission, yes. They have an obvious agenda, and they pick and choose what to report to advance it.

That's exactly what the Washington Post did. Do you really think the Post article was unbiased?

If I had to choose between the biased WaPo and the exceedingly biased JUFJ, yes.....I'd go with the WaPo.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

And here we have what I was talking about. Me, the Jew, is causing harm by objecting to White's repeated display of antisemitisim toward Jews. How DARE I describe White as an antisemite? How DARE I take offense that a man, who already had it pointed out to him that his Rothschild conspiracy theory was antisemitic then compound it and walk out on the Holocaust tour? You defend the Democrat who makes repeated shows of negativity toward Jews, and attack the Jew upset with it. (And as you know, I'm not the only one on this thread who has expressed concern with rising antisemtitsm on the left.)

And why are you switching it around as to whether this makes me more understanding of POC? What is it up to ME to be understanding of a black man who repeatedly shows blatant disregard to Jews? Why do you not ask for black people to understand the Jewish point in all this, since it was "one of their own" who advanced an antisemtitic theory and demonstrated a WGAF attitude toward the Holocaust?

Reminds me of that old song.....Protestants blame the Catholics, Catholics blame the Lutherans, Lutherans blame the Mormons, and everyone blames the Jews.

When there is conflict, you can work toward reconciliation or you can work toward further conflict. Is is pretty clear that your interest is in increased conflict. Given that you are proudly conservative, it is understandable that you have an interest in furthering divisions between the black and Jewish communities. I'm sure that if such a rift drove Jews toward the Republican Party, you would consider that a tremendous victory.

It is really sad that you would exploit something as horrible as anti-Semitism to achieve your partisan goal. Yes, it is terrible, it is terrible that you as a Jew, accuse someone of being a blatant anti-Semite where he is no such thing. Unlike you, the JUFJ is interested is reconciliation rather than conflict. But, because of your extreme partisanship, you disregard them, despite the fact that they have much greater knowledge of the situation than you.

Again, if someone accused you of blatant racism, would that make you more or less friendly towards people of color? That question does not involve White. It is a simple question. If you faced unfair allegations of that type, how would you react? Can you honestly say that would make you more emphatic towards people of color?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. The JUJ is an extremely liberal and biased group, with its own agenda. It's the same thing as using Breitbart as a source is trying to defend a comservative position.

JUFJ (the correct acronym) took the time to talk to those who were actually involved. Are you accusing them of lying?

I am not the immediate PP. But, I do think it is certainly possible that JUFJ was (a) selective in who they spoke to about the event and/or (b) selectively shared what was recounted to them about the event.

You seem to be accepting that the reporter was lying, or at least quite biased in the events he/she recounted. Why do you seem to think this is possible from the reporter, but not JUFJ?

Obviously any person or org can be biased, but I would tend (other things being equal) to trust a WaPo reporter rather than an organization with a clear agenda -- whether that be JUFJ or some conservative organization.

I find it quite interesting how here it seems to be the left (and I am no conservative) crying about fake news from the main stream media.

One of the fallacies of conservatives is their belief that the "mainstream media" is liberal. The mainstream media is corporate and its biases are toward the status quo. Ask Bernie Sanders how he feels about the mainstream media.

The Washington Post has a very troubling history in its coverage of local politics. By necessity the reporter was selective in his reporting. He obviously couldn't, and didn't, report very second of the tour. I can't believe that would even be a question in your mind. For whatever reason, the reporter concentrated on making White and his staff look like dunderheads or worse. All you have to do is read the article to understand why White would have been upset by the reporter's presence. How would you feel about being accompanied by someone you believed was going to make you look bad (and subsequently did exactly that)? Therefore, it is easy to believe the scenario presented by the JUFJ. On the other hand, what evidence is there to suggest that White left because of anti-Semitism? The Washington Post doesn't even make that allegation.

This really has nothing to do with liberal/conservative and the question of media bias.

You are still accepting that the Post reporter was looking to make White bad -- rather than reporting on what White did, which made him look bad. If he didn't act as a "dunderhead," your word, then there would have been nothing for the Post reporter to report about. If he had simply gone through the tour, it could have just as easily been a fluff piece on him trying to learn and make amends.

And, no, of course the reporter did not report every second of the event. But neither did JUFJ. They chose to recount (anonymously I believe) statements more supportive of White.

You find it easy to believe the scenario presented by JUFJ because you agree with their politics and would like their version of events to be true. That doesn't necessarily mean their version is not, in fact, correct, but please acknowledge that your world view is heavily influencing who you choose to believe here. And I will acknowledge that others are biased against JUFJ and that will lead them to more readily credit the Post's account.

As for me personally, I am not sure who to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

You are choosing to credit his assertions as to why he left the museum and that the reporter had an agenda. Maybe that is true, but that is far from clear or the only reasonable explanation as to what occurred.

His presence at the museum was complete uncessary . Overkill much ?

It was all a show to demonstrate that he felt bad for advancing an antisemitic conspiracy theory. Thing is, he made things worse but not staying through the tour.

An analogy: a white DC politican makes an extremely offensive and bigoted remark about POC. To "make amends" and show he sympathizes with their history of persecution, he goes to the AA Museum. But then, he can't even be bothered competing the tour and goes for a smoke on the sidewalk. What message would that send, especially coming so close on the heels of his earlier racist remark? People in DC would be calling for his head.

Stop using the black community in your false equivalencies , your history is absolutely nothing compared to theirs , but if you continue to do that you would find yourselves even more isolated .

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree! We still have evidence on this thread of the very behavior we are talking about.....the propensity of progressive liberals to explain away very obvious antisemtitism - and who actually get angry at the Jews who are rightly pointing out that any bigotry toward Jewish people is completely unacceptable.

I don't agree that there is obvious anti-Semitism on White's part. Even you are unable to point to obvious anti-Semitism. He didn't know the Rothschilds are Jewish and was spreading his nutty conspiracy theory out of ignorance, not anti-Semitism. He left the tour group because of the reporter and the subsequent article by that reporter demonstrated that White's instincts were correct. This is not "explaining away very obvious anti-Semitism", but simply pointing out that there wasn't obvious anti-Semitism. I can't explain away something that wasn't there in the first place.

Don't you understand the harm that you are doing by describing someone as being an obvious anti-Semite when he is no such thing? Don't you see how that sort of unfair treatment could generate a backlash? How would you react to being publicly described as a racist? Would that make you more or less understanding of people of color?

And here we have what I was talking about. Me, the Jew, is causing harm by objecting to White's repeated display of antisemitisim toward Jews. How DARE I describe White as an antisemite? How DARE I take offense that a man, who already had it pointed out to him that his Rothschild conspiracy theory was antisemitic then compound it and walk out on the Holocaust tour? You defend the Democrat who makes repeated shows of negativity toward Jews, and attack the Jew upset with it. (And as you know, I'm not the only one on this thread who has expressed concern with rising antisemtitsm on the left.)

And why are you switching it around as to whether this makes me more understanding of POC? What is it up to ME to be understanding of a black man who repeatedly shows blatant disregard to Jews? Why do you not ask for black people to understand the Jewish point in all this, since it was "one of their own" who advanced an antisemtitic theory and demonstrated a WGAF attitude toward the Holocaust?

Reminds me of that old song.....Protestants blame the Catholics, Catholics blame the Lutherans, Lutherans blame the Mormons, and everyone blames the Jews.

When there is conflict, you can work toward reconciliation or you can work toward further conflict. Is is pretty clear that your interest is in increased conflict. Given that you are proudly conservative, it is understandable that you have an interest in furthering divisions between the black and Jewish communities. I'm sure that if such a rift drove Jews toward the Republican Party, you would consider that a tremendous victory.

It is really sad that you would exploit something as horrible as anti-Semitism to achieve your partisan goal. Yes, it is terrible, it is terrible that you as a Jew, accuse someone of being a blatant anti-Semite where he is no such thing. Unlike you, the JUFJ is interested is reconciliation rather than conflict. But, because of your extreme partisanship, you disregard them, despite the fact that they have much greater knowledge of the situation than you.

Again, if someone accused you of blatant racism, would that make you more or less friendly towards people of color? That question does not involve White. It is a simple question. If you faced unfair allegations of that type, how would you react? Can you honestly say that would make you more emphatic towards people of color?

Wow. Your disdain for Jews who refuse to "be understanding" about prejudice toward Jews is coming through loud and clear. All of a sudden I'm the one who is driving division between Jews and blacks? Because I am taking a strong position against liberal DC politicians who either demonstrate antisemitic attitudes or are willing to accept them? You hate me, being a Jew who stands up against expressions of antisemtitsm. more than you do the bigoted politician who is advancing them! And why? Because he is a liberal and I am a conservative.

And look how you switched it around to attack the Jew, whose only "crime" is not failing on her sword in the face of rising antisemtism: My partisan goal is to creatr division between blacks and Jews.....and how it's not making me more emphatic to POC.....and my extreme partisanship.....blah, blah, blah. All I see from YOU is extreme partisanship, and continued efforts to downplay, excuse, and justify antisemitic attitudes when they occur among liberals. You would NEVER act this way if a Christian made repeated anti-Muslim statements and the Muslim objected.! Would you tell the Muslim: "try to be more understanding of the Christians. Why are you trying to stir up conflict"?

I don't expect to get through to you, due to your extreme partisanship and pleasure in attacking me for my political beliefs. I do hope that others will reflect on what Ive written.