How does Trayon White still have a job?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

Yes, from the right, these comments are tolerated. But not from the left.

The left has all over Trump's comments against Muslims and comments by others against other minority groups. But when it comes to the Jews, such comments are explained away.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

Yes, from the right, these comments are tolerated. But not from the left.

The left has all over Trump's comments against Muslims and comments by others against other minority groups. But when it comes to the Jews, such comments are explained away.

Clearcut anti-Semitic statements or actions are not tolerated. In this instance, White was saved by his evident ignorance.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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

There isn't a single poster here who thinks Soros controls the weather. Talk about baseless accusations! You bend over backwards to excuse the remarks of Trayvon White, and then make outlandish accusation to the conservative Jews who disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

Yes, from the right, these comments are tolerated. But not from the left.

The left has all over Trump's comments against Muslims and comments by others against other minority groups. But when it comes to the Jews, such comments are explained away.

Exactly! But don't say from the right. I'm a conservative who wouldn't blame Soros for the weather, and it's ridiculous for anyone to say I would, simoly because my political views are different.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

Yes, from the right, these comments are tolerated. But not from the left.

The left has all over Trump's comments against Muslims and comments by others against other minority groups. But when it comes to the Jews, such comments are explained away.

Clearcut anti-Semitic statements or actions are not tolerated. In this instance, White was saved by his evident ignorance.

But only when it involves the Jews are "clearcut" statements needed, and only in this case is the explanation of ignorance accepted as fact.

In other instances, the outrage machine is more than willing to interpret a statement in the most negative light and to assign the racist/sexist/etc motive to it, even when there is another equally plausible explanation that paints the speaker in a (at least somewhat) more positive light.

As I previously stated, but you chose not to copy in your response, I actually think we are often too quick to ascribe the worst possible motive to a statement that could interpreted multiple ways and too quick to call for people to be fired/resign. But I am troubled that only when the negative statement involves Jews do people seem to be wiling to give the benefit of the doubt and let calmer heads prevail.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

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

Yes, from the right, these comments are tolerated. But not from the left.

The left has all over Trump's comments against Muslims and comments by others against other minority groups. But when it comes to the Jews, such comments are explained away.

Clearcut anti-Semitic statements or actions are not tolerated. In this instance, White was saved by his evident ignorance.

But only when it involves the Jews are "clearcut" statements needed, and only in this case is the explanation of ignorance accepted as fact.

In other instances, the outrage machine is more than willing to interpret a statement in the most negative light and to assign the racist/sexist/etc motive to it, even when there is another equally plausible explanation that paints the speaker in a (at least somewhat) more positive light.

As I previously stated, but you chose not to copy in your response, I actually think we are often too quick to ascribe the worst possible motive to a statement that could interpreted multiple ways and too quick to call for people to be fired/resign. But I am troubled that only when the negative statement involves Jews do people seem to be wiling to give the benefit of the doubt and let calmer heads prevail.

Not only are people too quick to ascribe the worst possible motive, but we now live in the time of the internet death sentence in which one transgression is enough to end your career. I agree with you about this and I have often opposed the mobs that sometimes gather on DCUM even when I don't agree with the target of the mob. People should be allowed a mistake or two. Contrary to the belief of all of you accusing me of having a double standard, I try to always apply the same standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Washington examiner ? What a joke

[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 like someone wanted a certain outcome that didn't pan out and now we're openly wishing and praying for anti Semitism to manifest itself in a certain individual . You sound troubled bro, give it a rest.

[Anonymous]

Trayon White speaks for and is representative of the majority of Ward 8 residents.

Many, if not most, would agree with him more or less on the things he's said recently.

They're certainly not going to condemn him for it.

Let it go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trayon White speaks for and is representative of the majority of Ward 8 residents.

Many, if not most, would agree with him more or less on the things he's said recently.

They're certainly not going to condemn him for it.

Let it go.

Would you say the same if a Southern rural Mayor were being condemned for making racist comments? The majority of his constituents probably would agree with what he said.

Do you believe that racist/anti-semitic/sexist/etc comments are ok as long as the majority of the speaker's constituents agree with those views? What about Trump? Most Americans don't agree with a lot of his more extreme views, but if a majority of his supporters do, does that make it ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 like someone wanted a certain outcome that didn't pan out and now we're openly wishing and praying for anti Semitism to manifest itself in a certain individual . You sound troubled bro, give it a rest.

And there's the double standard that the other poster also alluded to. NO....we aren't praying for anti-Semitism, you idiot! We just don't want a higher acceptance of it when it occurs, where the perpetrator is given every benefit of the doubt, simply because the prejudicial attitude or behavior goes against Jews.

Also, when you say "I" sound like a trouble individual, what makes you think you know who you're talking to. The PP you replied to is someone else, who evidently share my opinion. There is more than one of is - at least three, judging from the writing style - echoing the same sentiments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trayon White speaks for and is representative of the majority of Ward 8 residents.

Many, if not most, would agree with him more or less on the things he's said recently.

They're certainly not going to condemn him for it.

Let it go.

Would you say the same if a Southern rural Mayor were being condemned for making racist comments? The majority of his constituents probably would agree with what he said.

Do you believe that racist/anti-semitic/sexist/etc comments are ok as long as the majority of the speaker's constituents agree with those views? What about Trump? Most Americans don't agree with a lot of his more extreme views, but if a majority of his supporters do, does that make it ok?

+ 1 And this is still another example of the double standard. Jews are asked to "let it go," whereas the same would not be expected of other minority groups. Still comes back to saying, basically, that antisemtism isn't as bad (or important) as other ".isms."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know, I thought Sarah Palin was a symbol of everything wrong with the Republican national party in 2008, but I was still appalled at the sexism that characterized the attacks against her.

It is possible to both disagree with someone politically and recognize when they're right about prejudice...

That's what's happening here, in some instances. The Jews who are being raked over the coals for recognizing White's antisemtism and calling it like it is are being vilified because they are not going along with the liberals, and in this case it means to find ways to excuse or deny antisemitism among liberals. Now, if we were to bring up bigotry by conservatives, we'd be cheered on.

And they are being led on by the moderator. For shame!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this, in a nutshell, is a form of antisemtitsm itself on the left. It's not just about tiki torches. It's the indifference to antisemtism, the call for patience and understanding in the face of repeated infractions, and the excuse-making - compared to the attack and negative motives upon Jews who are upset about it.

Just out of curiosity, how much difference do you see between conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds and conspiracy theories about George Soros? A lot of the Soros discourse is wrapped up in blatant anti-Semitism. Are you equally offended by that? We see Soros being blamed for all sorts of things almost daily in the Political Forum. Does that concern you? Where does this fit in your theories about "hard" and "soft" anti-Semitism?

Soros himself grew up in what he described as a Jewish ant-Semitic home.

Soros grew up in a Jewish home. What kind of drugs are you on?

Ask Soros. He’s the one who said it:


As a Jew in Hungary in 1944, Soros was in serious danger of deportation. To avoid Soros’ apprehension by the Nazis, his father had him spend the summer of 1944 living with a non-Jewish Ministry of Agriculture employee, posing as his godson. George Soros later said that he “grew up in a Jewish, anti-Semitic home,” and that his parents were “uncomfortable with their religious roots.” They even changed their name from Shwartz to Soros in 1936 to disassociate themselves from the Jewish community.

You don't provide a source for your quote, but a search for that exact language turned up a website that gave the source as Wikipedia. Wikipedia says this:

"Soros has wryly described his home as a Jewish antisemitic home."

"Wryly" is defined as "in a way that expresses dry, especially mocking, humor." Soros was joking, not saying that he literally grew up in an anti-Semitic house.

Ironically, in other circumstances, misrepresenting something in this way would itself be described as anti-Semitic.

That is third person, the 'wry' part. My source is the Jewish Virtual Library and they directly quoted Mr. Soros.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trayon White speaks for and is representative of the majority of Ward 8 residents.

Many, if not most, would agree with him more or less on the things he's said recently.

They're certainly not going to condemn him for it.

Let it go.

Would you say the same if a Southern rural Mayor were being condemned for making racist comments? The majority of his constituents probably would agree with what he said.

Do you believe that racist/anti-semitic/sexist/etc comments are ok as long as the majority of the speaker's constituents agree with those views? What about Trump? Most Americans don't agree with a lot of his more extreme views, but if a majority of his supporters do, does that make it ok?

+ 1 And this is still another example of the double standard. Jews are asked to "let it go," whereas the same would not be expected of other minority groups. Still comes back to saying, basically, that antisemtism isn't as bad (or important) as other ".isms."

When you attack him, you just reinforce the stereotype that his constituents already believe, and in so doing, you make him stronger and more credible to the people who voted for him in the first place.

You're supposed to be smart enough to figure this sort of thing out on your own.