How does Trayon White still have a job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've gone from a discussion of Trayon's horrible behavior in regard to Jews to heaping praise of Farrakhan's antisemtitic NOI? Seems like some of you are intent on proving that you DGAD about Jews or antisemtitem (unless it's coming from the alt-right). You don't think this type of antisemtism is as harmful, if not moreso, than the isolated rallies of nutjobs?

Also, White did not only say that the Rothschild's control the weather. He also said they control the World Bank AND the federal government. Everyone knows about the false conspiracy theories about the all-powerful Jews controlling the banks. He KNEW, especially when you put it together the venom he heard coming from Farrakhan.

And now, in the face of not one, not two, but THREE separate incidences showing White's "insensitivity" to antisemtism, the response is to stsrt talking about the positives of a virulently antisemitic organization that seeks to gain more followers.

O. M. G.

If Mr White had those same things about the Koch brothers, what would your reaction have been ? Please stop !

What do you mean? It's the same thing exactly! Antisemitism. Why is this even a question?

Except the Koch brothers aren't Jewish , see how much a fool you've made of yourself ?

Then why are you using them as an example? They're irrelevant to this discussion of Stereotypes of powerful Jews who control banks and the government.

I used them as an example to point that out those comments could've been made about any industrialist , yet you agreed that it will still be anti Semitism despite obviously not knowing that the Koch brothers are not Jewish . Go away

Duh. Now you're really stretching it. Claiming a Jewish family owns the World Bank is the antisemtitc steretype. And now that White's association and support of Farrakhan came out, it's so obvious where he got it. Farrakhan is always railing against the "rich powerful Jews" who own the world.

But wow. The anger toward Jews is this thread....scary.

It's nice out there , take a walk or something . Your insufferability is unbecoming

^^^ and this is the reaction when Jews are upset by the total indifference to anti-Semitism: they are told they are insufferable and to talk a walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've gone from a discussion of Trayon's horrible behavior in regard to Jews to heaping praise of Farrakhan's antisemtitic NOI? Seems like some of you are intent on proving that you DGAD about Jews or antisemtitem (unless it's coming from the alt-right). You don't think this type of antisemtism is as harmful, if not moreso, than the isolated rallies of nutjobs?

Also, White did not only say that the Rothschild's control the weather. He also said they control the World Bank AND the federal government. Everyone knows about the false conspiracy theories about the all-powerful Jews controlling the banks. He KNEW, especially when you put it together the venom he heard coming from Farrakhan.

And now, in the face of not one, not two, but THREE separate incidences showing White's "insensitivity" to antisemtism, the response is to stsrt talking about the positives of a virulently antisemitic organization that seeks to gain more followers.

O. M. G.

If Mr White had those same things about the Koch brothers, what would your reaction have been ? Please stop !

What do you mean? It's the same thing exactly! Antisemitism. Why is this even a question?

Except the Koch brothers aren't Jewish , see how much a fool you've made of yourself ?

Then why are you using them as an example? They're irrelevant to this discussion of Stereotypes of powerful Jews who control banks and the government.

I used them as an example to point that out those comments could've been made about any industrialist , yet you agreed that it will still be anti Semitism despite obviously not knowing that the Koch brothers are not Jewish . Go away

Duh. Now you're really stretching it. Claiming a Jewish family owns the World Bank is the antisemtitc steretype. And now that White's association and support of Farrakhan came out, it's so obvious where he got it. Farrakhan is always railing against the "rich powerful Jews" who own the world.

But wow. The anger toward Jews is this thread....scary.

It's nice out there , take a walk or something . Your insufferability is unbecoming

^^^ and this is the reaction when Jews are upset by the total indifference to anti-Semitism: they are told they are insufferable and to talk a walk.

You sound like a petulant child , from the onset some of you chose to make it about anti Semitism ,which I guess is your prerogative. However , respect is a two way street and you're not going to gain any more sympathy by insisting that your narrative is the one we must ascribe to. In this instance , it's clearly not the case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've gone from a discussion of Trayon's horrible behavior in regard to Jews to heaping praise of Farrakhan's antisemtitic NOI? Seems like some of you are intent on proving that you DGAD about Jews or antisemtitem (unless it's coming from the alt-right). You don't think this type of antisemtism is as harmful, if not moreso, than the isolated rallies of nutjobs?

Also, White did not only say that the Rothschild's control the weather. He also said they control the World Bank AND the federal government. Everyone knows about the false conspiracy theories about the all-powerful Jews controlling the banks. He KNEW, especially when you put it together the venom he heard coming from Farrakhan.

And now, in the face of not one, not two, but THREE separate incidences showing White's "insensitivity" to antisemtism, the response is to stsrt talking about the positives of a virulently antisemitic organization that seeks to gain more followers.

O. M. G.

If Mr White had those same things about the Koch brothers, what would your reaction have been ? Please stop !

What do you mean? It's the same thing exactly! Antisemitism. Why is this even a question?

Except the Koch brothers aren't Jewish , see how much a fool you've made of yourself ?

Then why are you using them as an example? They're irrelevant to this discussion of Stereotypes of powerful Jews who control banks and the government.

I used them as an example to point that out those comments could've been made about any industrialist , yet you agreed that it will still be anti Semitism despite obviously not knowing that the Koch brothers are not Jewish . Go away

Duh. Now you're really stretching it. Claiming a Jewish family owns the World Bank is the antisemtitc steretype. And now that White's association and support of Farrakhan came out, it's so obvious where he got it. Farrakhan is always railing against the "rich powerful Jews" who own the world.

But wow. The anger toward Jews is this thread....scary.

It's nice out there , take a walk or something . Your insufferability is unbecoming

^^^ and this is the reaction when Jews are upset by the total indifference to anti-Semitism: they are told they are insufferable and to talk a walk.

You sound like a petulant child , from the onset some of you chose to make it about anti Semitism ,which I guess is your prerogative. However , respect is a two way street and you're not going to gain any more sympathy by insisting that your narrative is the one we must ascribe to. In this instance , it's clearly not the case

And that is your opinion, just as I have mine. Why do you get to determine which "case" is correct?

Again, it is ironic that a thread opened (not by me) to discuss and expose antisemitism on the DC council has turned into condemnation of Jews who agree with that interpretation. Posters upthread remarked that there is just as much antisemtism from the left, and this thread proves it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We've gone from a discussion of Trayon's horrible behavior in regard to Jews to heaping praise of Farrakhan's antisemtitic NOI? Seems like some of you are intent on proving that you DGAD about Jews or antisemtitem (unless it's coming from the alt-right). You don't think this type of antisemtism is as harmful, if not moreso, than the isolated rallies of nutjobs?

Also, White did not only say that the Rothschild's control the weather. He also said they control the World Bank AND the federal government. Everyone knows about the false conspiracy theories about the all-powerful Jews controlling the banks. He KNEW, especially when you put it together the venom he heard coming from Farrakhan.

And now, in the face of not one, not two, but THREE separate incidences showing White's "insensitivity" to antisemtism, the response is to stsrt talking about the positives of a virulently antisemitic organization that seeks to gain more followers.

O. M. G.

If Mr White had those same things about the Koch brothers, what would your reaction have been ? Please stop !

What do you mean? It's the same thing exactly! Antisemitism. Why is this even a question?

Except the Koch brothers aren't Jewish , see how much a fool you've made of yourself ?

Then why are you using them as an example? They're irrelevant to this discussion of Stereotypes of powerful Jews who control banks and the government.

I used them as an example to point that out those comments could've been made about any industrialist , yet you agreed that it will still be anti Semitism despite obviously not knowing that the Koch brothers are not Jewish . Go away

Duh. Now you're really stretching it. Claiming a Jewish family owns the World Bank is the antisemtitc steretype. And now that White's association and support of Farrakhan came out, it's so obvious where he got it. Farrakhan is always railing against the "rich powerful Jews" who own the world.

But wow. The anger toward Jews is this thread....scary.

It's nice out there , take a walk or something . Your insufferability is unbecoming

^^^ and this is the reaction when Jews are upset by the total indifference to anti-Semitism: they are told they are insufferable and to talk a walk.

You sound like a petulant child , from the onset some of you chose to make it about anti Semitism ,which I guess is your prerogative. However , respect is a two way street and you're not going to gain any more sympathy by insisting that your narrative is the one we must ascribe to. In this instance , it's clearly not the case

And that is your opinion, just as I have mine. Why do you get to determine which "case" is correct?

Again, it is ironic that a thread opened (not by me) to discuss and expose antisemitism on the DC council has turned into condemnation of Jews who agree with that interpretation. Posters upthread remarked that there is just as much antisemtism from the left, and this thread proves it.

Ok bro

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ and this is the reaction when Jews are upset by the total indifference to anti-Semitism: they are told they are insufferable and to talk a walk.

I just came back from a four mile walk. I recommend it. But, since I came back to find lies posted about me here my mood hasn't improved much. I want to reiterate that I am the opposite of indifferent to anti-Semitism. I strongly oppose anti-Semitism and I fully understand why White's statements and actions are concerning to Jews (as well as to anyone else concerned about anti-Semitism, among whom I include myself). But, I feel strongly that White's comments and actions don't rise to the level of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, I think that attacks on White that not only ignore his efforts to build bridges to the Jewish community, but actually ridicule his efforts, are unfair and will be counterproductive.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:And that is your opinion, just as I have mine. Why do you get to determine which "case" is correct?

Again, it is ironic that a thread opened (not by me) to discuss and expose antisemitism on the DC council has turned into condemnation of Jews who agree with that interpretation. Posters upthread remarked that there is just as much antisemtism from the left, and this thread proves it.

You are basically calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an anti-Semite. You claim that White is an anti-Semite despite there being no clearcut evidence of that. I've been called an anti-Semite and you have given silent assent to that allegation. You've called other posters anti-Semites. So, you are correct that we all have our own opinions. But, the difference is that you consider anyone who doesn't share your opinion to be an ant-Semite.

[Anonymous]

I'm equally offended that the Mayor and other DC officials did not stand up and speak up at the event when Trayon White started spewing this conspiracy theory. Silence of bystanders is just as offensive to me.

[jsteele]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/no-reprimand-for-dc-lawmaker-who-donated-to-event-where-farrakhan-denounced-jews-council-chair-says/2018/04/23/46ad0ef4-4732-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_story.html

The DC Council will not reprimand White:

"The D.C. Council will not reprimand member Trayon White (D-Ward 8), after he donated $500 from his constituent services fund to a Chicago event where Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan denounced Jews, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said Monday."
...

"Both Cheh and Evans dialed back their calls for action. Cheh said the council needs to make 'some kind of statement' condemning anti-Semitism and disavowing White’s financial support for Farrakhan, but wouldn’t commit to formal action. Evans said he no longer supports punishment after speaking with White for a half hour on Sunday."

"We need to kind of ratchet down the rhetoric, and all parties involved need to understand each other and really increase the dialogue going forward," Evans said.

So, I guess now Evan's is also an anti-Semite since he has the same position as me.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/no-reprimand-for-dc-lawmaker-who-donated-to-event-where-farrakhan-denounced-jews-council-chair-says/2018/04/23/46ad0ef4-4732-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_story.html

The DC Council will not reprimand White:

"The D.C. Council will not reprimand member Trayon White (D-Ward 8), after he donated $500 from his constituent services fund to a Chicago event where Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan denounced Jews, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said Monday."
...

"Both Cheh and Evans dialed back their calls for action. Cheh said the council needs to make 'some kind of statement' condemning anti-Semitism and disavowing White’s financial support for Farrakhan, but wouldn’t commit to formal action. Evans said he no longer supports punishment after speaking with White for a half hour on Sunday."

"We need to kind of ratchet down the rhetoric, and all parties involved need to understand each other and really increase the dialogue going forward," Evans said.

So, I guess now Evan's is also an anti-Semite since he has the same position as me.

Oh boy!!! Here comes the baseless accusations again .

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/no-reprimand-for-dc-lawmaker-who-donated-to-event-where-farrakhan-denounced-jews-council-chair-says/2018/04/23/46ad0ef4-4732-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_story.html

The DC Council will not reprimand White:

"The D.C. Council will not reprimand member Trayon White (D-Ward 8), after he donated $500 from his constituent services fund to a Chicago event where Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan denounced Jews, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said Monday."
...

"Both Cheh and Evans dialed back their calls for action. Cheh said the council needs to make 'some kind of statement' condemning anti-Semitism and disavowing White’s financial support for Farrakhan, but wouldn’t commit to formal action. Evans said he no longer supports punishment after speaking with White for a half hour on Sunday."

"We need to kind of ratchet down the rhetoric, and all parties involved need to understand each other and really increase the dialogue going forward," Evans said.

So, I guess now Evan's is also an anti-Semite since he has the same position as me.

Wow, I'm kind of surprised to read this. Unfortunately, I think it's only a matter of time before White reveals more and more of his inner thoughts and beliefs and it won't be pretty.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I'm kind of surprised to read this. Unfortunately, I think it's only a matter of time before White reveals more and more of his inner thoughts and beliefs and it won't be pretty.

They will wait until the Office of Campaign Finance finishes its investigation which will probably result in a fine. Then, they may act, though probably not. Unless you are correct, then their hand will be forced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/no-reprimand-for-dc-lawmaker-who-donated-to-event-where-farrakhan-denounced-jews-council-chair-says/2018/04/23/46ad0ef4-4732-11e8-9072-f6d4bc32f223_story.html

The DC Council will not reprimand White:

"The D.C. Council will not reprimand member Trayon White (D-Ward 8), after he donated $500 from his constituent services fund to a Chicago event where Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan denounced Jews, Council Chairman Phil Mendelson (D) said Monday."
...

"Both Cheh and Evans dialed back their calls for action. Cheh said the council needs to make 'some kind of statement' condemning anti-Semitism and disavowing White’s financial support for Farrakhan, but wouldn’t commit to formal action. Evans said he no longer supports punishment after speaking with White for a half hour on Sunday."

"We need to kind of ratchet down the rhetoric, and all parties involved need to understand each other and really increase the dialogue going forward," Evans said.

So, I guess now Evan's is also an anti-Semite since he has the same position as me.

Wow, I'm kind of surprised to read this. Unfortunately, I think it's only a matter of time before White reveals more and more of his inner thoughts and beliefs and it won't be pretty.

It's sad that there is such a high level of acceptance of antisemitism among the DC council. The message is that antisemtism is "no big deal" compared to other forms of bigotry, which speaks volumes. Still, someone with engrained antisemtic beliefs will soon, as you say, reveal his inner thoughts again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/dc-councilman-trayvon-white-anti-semitism

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that is your opinion, just as I have mine. Why do you get to determine which "case" is correct?

Again, it is ironic that a thread opened (not by me) to discuss and expose antisemitism on the DC council has turned into condemnation of Jews who agree with that interpretation. Posters upthread remarked that there is just as much antisemtism from the left, and this thread proves it.

You are basically calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an anti-Semite. You claim that White is an anti-Semite despite there being no clearcut evidence of that. I've been called an anti-Semite and you have given silent assent to that allegation. You've called other posters anti-Semites. So, you are correct that we all have our own opinions. But, the difference is that you consider anyone who doesn't share your opinion to be an ant-Semite.

DP. Yes, there is an explanation that White is not an anti-semite. But one can only come to that conclusion when White is given absolutely every benefit of the doubt and one credits every explanation/excuse he has provided. You and others are bending over backwards to accept the (relatively) innocent explanations for White's statements/actions when Jews are the targeted population.

A politician who made the same remarks against Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and probably even plain old Whites would probably not be given the same benefit of the doubt. You would not see people twisting every which way to accept the innocent explanation for impolitic comments. Only when it is the Jews under attack do people decide now is the time to give someone the benefit of the doubt. (I actually think the outrage machine has gotten too strong/indignant and that we are often too quick to call for scalps when someone makes a questionable comment, so maybe I should be happy that calmer heads have seemed to prevail here. But I am still troubled that rationality only seems to have reared its said when the Jews are attacked.)

And the same thing happens with Israel. There is plenty to criticize about Israeli policies, but you and others are myopically focused on Israel's faults -- real and perceived -- and there is absolutely no recognition of faults on the other side, or legitimate threats that Israeli faces. Any other country that faced the threats that it has (both historic and current) would at least be given the benefit of the doubt on some things, some of the time. (That doesn't mean that all of its policies would or should be beyond criticism.) Instead it is Israel/the Jews who are the sole aggressors and only party worthy of condemnation. In a similar vein, look at the UN -- resolution after resolution condemning Israeli -- sometimes fairly, often not -- while misdeeds of innumerable other nations are excused or ignored.

This double standard -- both domestically and internationally -- is very disheartening to many Jews, especially since a lot of it is coming from the left today. For better or worse, most of us don't expect much from the right. But the left -- with which most of us identify -- has historically been a safe and welcoming space. That is much less true today and is scary for a lot of people.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:A politician who made the same remarks against Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and probably even plain old Whites would probably not be given the same benefit of the doubt. You would not see people twisting every which way to accept the innocent explanation for impolitic comments.

The other side of that coin is that if White had offended Muslims, it wouldn't even be a story. Public officials throughout the US routinely make offensive statements about Muslims without suffering an iota of consequences. One such public official is our president. Another is his National Security Advisor, and a third is about to be confirmed as Secretary of State.

Of course, White could have accused George Soros of controlling the weather and he would probably find support among some posters in this forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And that is your opinion, just as I have mine. Why do you get to determine which "case" is correct?

Again, it is ironic that a thread opened (not by me) to discuss and expose antisemitism on the DC council has turned into condemnation of Jews who agree with that interpretation. Posters upthread remarked that there is just as much antisemtism from the left, and this thread proves it.

You are basically calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an anti-Semite. You claim that White is an anti-Semite despite there being no clearcut evidence of that. I've been called an anti-Semite and you have given silent assent to that allegation. You've called other posters anti-Semites. So, you are correct that we all have our own opinions. But, the difference is that you consider anyone who doesn't share your opinion to be an ant-Semite.

DP. Yes, there is an explanation that White is not an anti-semite. But one can only come to that conclusion when White is given absolutely every benefit of the doubt and one credits every explanation/excuse he has provided. You and others are bending over backwards to accept the (relatively) innocent explanations for White's statements/actions when Jews are the targeted population.

A politician who made the same remarks against Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, and probably even plain old Whites would probably not be given the same benefit of the doubt. You would not see people twisting every which way to accept the innocent explanation for impolitic comments. Only when it is the Jews under attack do people decide now is the time to give someone the benefit of the doubt. (I actually think the outrage machine has gotten too strong/indignant and that we are often too quick to call for scalps when someone makes a questionable comment, so maybe I should be happy that calmer heads have seemed to prevail here. But I am still troubled that rationality only seems to have reared its said when the Jews are attacked.)

And the same thing happens with Israel. There is plenty to criticize about Israeli policies, but you and others are myopically focused on Israel's faults -- real and perceived -- and there is absolutely no recognition of faults on the other side, or legitimate threats that Israeli faces. Any other country that faced the threats that it has (both historic and current) would at least be given the benefit of the doubt on some things, some of the time. (That doesn't mean that all of its policies would or should be beyond criticism.) Instead it is Israel/the Jews who are the sole aggressors and only party worthy of condemnation. In a similar vein, look at the UN -- resolution after resolution condemning Israeli -- sometimes fairly, often not -- while misdeeds of innumerable other nations are excused or ignored.

This double standard -- both domestically and internationally -- is very disheartening to many Jews, especially since a lot of it is coming from the left today. For better or worse, most of us don't expect much from the right. But the left -- with which most of us identify -- has historically been a safe and welcoming space. That is much less true today and is scary for a lot of people.

Thank you. I wrote the post immediately preceding yours (they were simultaneous), expressing the same view, but you explained the issue so much more thoroughly. (It is also basically what I have been saying: that there is a double standard where antisemtism is concerned, and for that I have been on the receiving end of some pretty nasty accusations.) It is only when the "wronged" group is Jewish are liberals so willing to overlook the bigotry, offering up all sorts of excuses that they would not come into play had bigoted remarks and callous indifference been against Muslims or African-Americans.