How does Trayon White still have a job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can honestly say that I'm less upset by Trayon's White's comments/actions than by the repetitive attempts here to say that they "aren't that bad."

I actually don't care what happens with Trayon White as an individual. What I would like is recognition that anti-semitism among people of color is on the rise, with the cause of the Palestinians a convenient cover for those accusations. For American Jews, it increasingly feels like (mostly mild, "all Jews are like this") anti-semitism is ok on the left and the right. It's alarming.

When you combine it with the rise in real anti-Jewish hate crimes here and around the world, Jews aren't sure what to think. It certainly feels like Jews are the last group anyone wants to defend ...

Trump's approval amongst African Americans is 10% , amongst hispanics 11% , amongst whites ? 53% . Once again the reality doesn't align with your imagination which is what always happen to people who are hell bent on stretching the truth . The man who referred to people who yelled ' Jews will not replace us' has an approval of 53% amongst whites, but the let the facts get on your way .

What does Trump have to do with anti-semitism on the left? They don't like Trump, but that doesn't mean they like Jews.

Exactly. Look at how these liberals are contorting themselves to deny antisemtitism on their side. So because Trayon White doesn't like Trump (assumption on my part), that means he couldn't possibly hold negative views toward Jews? Mr, Whites dislikes Trump for entirely different reasons.

If the left is anti semtitic , it has a strange way of showing it . The left has yet to hold anti Jews rally across the country and what not

Luckily, the ADL keeps track of these things: https://www.adl.org/blog/anti-israel-and-anti-semitic-protests-in-us-and-major-international-cities-in-response-to

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 .

Are you the earlier poster who said Jews better be extremely careful?

Analogies using blacks and Jews are valid in proving the point. Both have had horrific atrocities leveled at them. No need to try to get into who had it "worse." It's debatable, and that debate is totally off-topic.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

Then let's agree:

1) The JUFJ is biased and probably presents a too sympathetic picture of White;
2) The Post's account is unfair and probably presents an unnecessarily hostile version of the tour;

As a result, we really don't know why White left. Therefore, this event does not add to nor detract from the accusation of anti-Semitism on White's part.

This has been my point all along. It is simply wrong to declare White an obvious anti-Semite when such a thing is not obvious at all.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to criticize White for a variety of lesser evils.

[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?

He didn't just leave. He doubled down on trying to explain away the Nazis' cruelty in the displays, after the docent responded. I do think that refusing to "see" the anti-semitism in images from the Holocaust is unabashedly anti-semitic. It's much as if I went to tour the African American history museum and asked "innocent" questions like, "were the blacks given their own drinking fountains because they wanted a different kind of water?" I mean, come on! "Were they protecting the woman in the photos?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP if there's prejudice against Jews , the facts on the ground do not support that exaggerated claim .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP if there's prejudice against Jews , the facts on the ground do not support that exaggerated claim .

IF there's prejudice against Jews? IF? There's the diminishment of Antisemitism again. "We don't even know for sure if there IS antisemitism." Deny, deny, deny.

[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?

He didn't just leave. He doubled down on trying to explain away the Nazis' cruelty in the displays, after the docent responded. I do think that refusing to "see" the anti-semitism in images from the Holocaust is unabashedly anti-semitic. It's much as if I went to tour the African American history museum and asked "innocent" questions like, "were the blacks given their own drinking fountains because they wanted a different kind of water?" I mean, come on! "Were they protecting the woman in the photos?"

Thank you. I'm the Jewish poster Jeff is furious with because I keep insisting White is antisemtitc. Jeff would rather me be a "good Jew," quietly accept White's attitude, try to understand him better, and stop making waves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP if there's prejudice against Jews , the facts on the ground do not support that exaggerated claim .

IF there's prejudice against Jews? IF? There's the diminishment of Antisemitism again. "We don't even know for sure if there IS antisemitism." Deny, deny, deny.

It is incombent on you to provide proof of your claims as opposed to expecting people to accept them as facts .

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

Then let's agree:

1) The JUFJ is biased and probably presents a too sympathetic picture of White;
2) The Post's account is unfair and probably presents an unnecessarily hostile version of the tour;

As a result, we really don't know why White left. Therefore, this event does not add to nor detract from the accusation of anti-Semitism on White's part.

This has been my point all along. It is simply wrong to declare White an obvious anti-Semite when such a thing is not obvious at all.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to criticize White for a variety of lesser evils.

Are you kidding me here? Why are you defending someone who has expressed such retrograde, abhorrent views and at every public opportunity has doubled down on them?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

LOL, I don't hate you. I am giving you a platform to present your views even though I strongly disagree with them.

You have made it pretty clear that anti-Semitism is only of interest to you if it can be exploited to further your partisan politics. You see an opportunity to attack liberals and further a black/Jewish divide. The facts don't matter at all. It's sad because I detest anti-Semitism just as I detest racism, bigotry, sexism, and other forms of discrimination (yes, including Islamophobia). I would love to find common ground with you to combat anti-Semitism. But such a thing would actually be against your interests. Your agenda is division, not reconciliation. For you, "anti-Semitism" has nothing to do with actual anti-Semitism. It is just a handy tool to further your partisan political interests.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Are you kidding me here? Why are you defending someone who has expressed such retrograde, abhorrent views and at every public opportunity has doubled down on them?

Because no such thing has happened. Get back to me when you are ready to discuss reality.

[Anonymous]

I'm the other poster who still feels strongly that White is anti-semitic.

I am unclear why whether or not he intends to be anti-semitic matters much. As I said earlier, what's missing for me is an indication that he sees the kind of anti-semitism that is so pervasive that it could reach someone who couldn't care less about Jews in the form of conspiracy theories about controlling the weather as a BIG DEAL. I don't see that; haven't heard it.

Someone who did see it as a big deal would have stuck out the tour, WaPo reporter or not, and then issued a statement that made that reporter look like an ass for doubting his sincerity. Instead, White is annoyed that his PR tour was derailed, and is commenting on that.

Again, I don't care about White much at all. I care about the fact that we seem to have all come to understand that racism is so baked into our culture that it is easy to do racist things without intending to do them, and that the response should be self-reflection, not defensiveness. We don't seem to want to admit the same about anti-semitism, and as a result, it is free to grow.

As for "the facts on the ground" not supporting it, again, I will admit Jews may be hyper-sensitive to this since we were similarly successful and assimilated in Europe in the 1920s and 30s, and we all know how that turned out. If you're not sure, you could ask the people who are still alive today who lived through it. It's the casual anti-semitism that left unchecked grows into formal anti-semitism, probably these days starting in the form of asking American Jews to disavow Israel, and then working to get the gov't to sign on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

Then let's agree:

1) The JUFJ is biased and probably presents a too sympathetic picture of White;
2) The Post's account is unfair and probably presents an unnecessarily hostile version of the tour;

As a result, we really don't know why White left. Therefore, this event does not add to nor detract from the accusation of anti-Semitism on White's part.

This has been my point all along. It is simply wrong to declare White an obvious anti-Semite when such a thing is not obvious at all.

On the other hand, it is certainly possible to criticize White for a variety of lesser evils.

Are you kidding me here? Why are you defending someone who has expressed such retrograde, abhorrent views and at every public opportunity has doubled down on them?

Agree! This entire thread is shocking. Complete denial of someone's abhorrent views as they relate to Jews (and a turnaround to condemn Jews who are upset by those views.) Why is he getting a pass? Because he's a Democrat? Because he's a black man? Why are liberals bending over backward to defnd this guy?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Agree! This entire thread is shocking. Complete denial of someone's abhorrent views as they relate to Jews (and a turnaround to condemn Jews who are upset by those views.) Why is he getting a pass? Because he's a Democrat? Because he's a black man? Why are liberals bending over backward to defnd this guy?

Please quote one statement by White that demonstrates "abhorrent views as they relate to Jews". If you make such an allegation but cannot support it with even a single example, then you deserve to be condemned.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
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.

LOL, I don't hate you. I am giving you a platform to present your views even though I strongly disagree with them.

You have made it pretty clear that anti-Semitism is only of interest to you if it can be exploited to further your partisan politics. You see an opportunity to attack liberals and further a black/Jewish divide. The facts don't matter at all. It's sad because I detest anti-Semitism just as I detest racism, bigotry, sexism, and other forms of discrimination (yes, including Islamophobia). I would love to find common ground with you to combat anti-Semitism. But such a thing would actually be against your interests. Your agenda is division, not reconciliation. For you, "anti-Semitism" has nothing to do with actual anti-Semitism. It is just a handy tool to further your partisan political interests.

Wow again. You defend the anti-Semite, and then assign disreputable reasons for my objections to antisemitism. Now you're claiming I don't really care about Jew-haters at all! Unreal.

How about....I am a Jew who has had some pretty horrific anti-Semitism launched my and my family's way (worse during childhood), which included not only slurs but destruction of property. I want to ferret it out wherever it exists, and that INCLUDES when it exists among liberal politicians. ZERO TOLERANCE. And yes, I am appalled by the anti-Jew rallies on the right (I know you're going there), but they are an extreme fringe group who do me no harm. Now, antisemitic beliefs percolating through DC residents (native Washingtonian here) are actually more insidious and thus more damaging.