You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"? Darn those woke hippies at... let's see... IBM!
Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is that they don't want their ads running alongside that trash.
> You mean when the advertising companies pulled their money from Twitter after its owner said Jews "pushing [...] hatred against whites" was "the actual truth"?
Not really, because I specifically stated that my response was not about the Musk situation. "Jewish communities hate whites" does sound pretty antisemitic to me.
But so does the equivalent trash of "all whites are racist", which for some reason is a-ok for the advertising companies.
I've been pondering a thought that we need to stop treating racism as something like a witch hunt, and analyze it more like excrement. Not something that's limited to specific people, but rather something everyone has a bit of. Not something that can ever be eliminated, but rather it's everyone's responsibility to mitigate it. Anyone can get some on their hands by accident, laziness, or dealing with a problem. But you don't come out of the bathroom waving it around and expecting to be appreciated. And if a bunch of people started proudly declaring that they shouldn't have to wash their hands and generally validating each others' slobbery, they'd be rightfully shunned.
This framing has some nice results like the contortions around "reverse" racism and the whitewashing of "positive" racism as "not racism" aren't necessary. If you're engaging in collectivism based on race, that's racism - regardless of whether your intent is "good" or "bad". And sometimes that's inevitable (cf "dealing with a problem"), but that doesn't mean it's ever something to really be celebrated.
Back to the topic with that in mind - it's "a-ok" because the advertising companies are racist, as they've generally been. Group stereotyping is a deep part of human psychology and therefore a powerful marketing tool. The main things that have changed is what is considered aspirational and high class, and what is considered verboten.
Many racists proclaim people “misunderstand racism” when their different standards for different races are denounced for being racist.
After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism, generation after generation, people are done hearing the moralizing excuses for why this time Democrats have the magic formula for virtuous bigotry.
>After 160 years of the same political party fighting to rebuild racism
Is this serious comment? There was nothing that happened in the parties in the 1960s? Maybe 1964? All of a sudden the people in the south just suddenly decided to no longer be racist, and joined the Republican party fighting _against_ racism?
> All of a sudden the people in the south just suddenly decided to no longer be racist
That's pretty much what happened. The CRA (passed despite the opposition of southern Democrats) shifted the social equilibrium away from racism and a segregated society being totally normal and state-sanctioned, and Southern states had to reinvent themselves along different lines. They broadly chose economic freedom starting from the 1980s (despite continuing opposition by Dems, who to this day favor heavy-handed state intervention and a highly paternalistic attitude towards minorities), which is what created the modern Sunbelt.
Yes — the same party has been persistently racist.
After the Civil War, they formed the KKK and Jim Crow to circumvent civil rights.
In modern times, they implemented racial quotas then racial preferences, both of which were ruled illegal bigotry by the US Supreme Court. (At Harvard and UNC, just last year.)
The same party who called blacks “super predators” (Clinton) and whose current president described integrated schools as a “racial jungle” (Biden).
The same party whose supporters are in the streets today, chanting genocidal slogans such as “from the river to the sea”.
The former DNC chairwoman just this week mocked the name of someone born in the US with Indian heritage and told him to “go home!”
you can’t be racist against white people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books and open up that independent thinking some.
"you can’t be racist against Jewish people. the definition of racism centers on power not the tone of dermis. read some different books (Mein Kampf, The International Jew) and open up that independent thinking some."
Pat yourself on the back I guess. Your blind hatred of White people has caused you to use literal Nazi rhetoric.
Institutional racism happens against white people — and denying that is supporting racism, even by your modern definition meant to minimize the on-going racism of the Democratic Party.
These same companies are noticeably silent over the outpouring of support for Hamas on TikTok and other platforms, or when #KillAllMen was trending on old Twitter.
> that trash
... is defined ideologically, it's the point being made here.
"Jewish Communities" doesn't mean "All Jews", and that's obvious to anyone not looking for a reason to be angry. Muslim communities just bombed the hell out of Israel, and that's not islamophobic to say, because it doesn't implicate all Muslims.
I don't know about that. As a reader, I find that "Jewish Communities" very much sounds like "All Jews" and "Muslim Communities" very much sounds like "All Muslims". If that's not what the authors mean, I'm sure that there are much, much better phrasings.
That may very well be your own bias. If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities. When I saw "Jewish Communities" in gp's headline, I immediately thought "oh, the ADL", because they're bigots and don't really hide it.
Everyone has biases, and you're not exempt. If you know that your language might be grossly misinterpreted, consider changing it, if only for your own image.
> If I say "Christian Communities hate gays", you'll probably think of one or two specific communities.
That might be true for me, but I'm thinking of "Protestant Christian evangelicals and co." as one community, so...
And my point is that "Muslim communities bombed Israel" is not an obviously reasonable statement. If Reuters or AP posted an article with that phrasing, I'd wonder if some party other than Hamas was fighting Israel now. At that point, why not just say "Muslims bombed Israel"? It's technically true but also wildly disingenuous. You'd have to qualify it with a bunch of details in order to make it an honest, good-faith statement.
But it's the literal truth, and using a descriptor on a group of people acting does not attribute the action to all people who fit the descriptor. Not all mammals are dogs, and that shouldn't need to be said.
The clear subtext in your examples is "Jews" (not "some Jews"), "Muslims" (not "some Muslims"), "Christians" (not "some Christians"). A racist (or variant thereof) will not say "all Jews"/"all Muslims"/"all Gays"/... , they'll just casually namedrop "Jews" (or even a single Jewish personality), "Muslims" (or even a single Muslim personality), "Gays" (or even a single Gay personality), and use this as a dogwhistle.
If you write "Christian Communities hate gays", I will very much read "all Christian communities". And deduce that you're probably spewing nonsense, just as with "Jewish communities" and "Muslim communities".
Also, please do not make assumptions on my biases.
It definitely means that, as a general rule, dogs bite people. It might not mean all dogs, but it's definitely a warning against dogs in general.
Now, transpose this to human beings. The message we're commenting is a warning against Jewish Communities, i.e. I can't think of any reasonable way to interpret it other than as antisemitism.
You say "that's obvious" but your terminology is ambiguous. I wouldn't say "Muslim communities bombed Israel". To me, that sounds something along the lines of "the predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East teamed up and bombed Israel".
And that's your bias speaking, since my statement is factual. It's perfectly normal, and you can accept that my meaning and your interpretation can be wildly different, therefore accusing me of the worst possible interpretation is unfair.
It's totally fair. If you're going to be intentionally ambiguous just because it's technically correct, we can just assume you're an asshole and extrapolate from there
Or maybe, just maybe, the simpler explanation is that they don't want their ads running alongside that trash.