Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Is Steve Bannon really anti-semitic?
  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 2:20 pm
Fox wrote:
Thumbs Up

Maybe this is the common ground that can unite liberals and conservatives -- a nationwide consensus that Trump's phone be confiscated.

When he tweeted his unfiltered musings, the conservatives on Twitter started tweeting, "IVANKA!!!! Take your father's phone away!" Now they just tweet, "IVANKA!!!" and everyone knows he's at it again.


Get him a kosher phone!! Lol.
Back to top

sushilover




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 5:00 pm
youngishbear wrote:
Summary:


On Trump and Breitbart, for example:


Left: Words are powerful and meaningful. We need to choose them carefully.

Right: Meh. Words are fun toys that can entertain or annoy, satirize and exaggerate, but if you read more into them that's your problem.



On offensive speech:
Left: I believe the world would be a better place if people put in more effort not to offend each other, whether they believe the offense-taking to be justified or not. Certain words can wound, and it makes me sad that you don't seem to care enough.

Right: Meh. Being offended is a state of mind. Get over yourself and stop emoting. It's juvenile, ineffective, and sooo annoying. Let me speak my mind using the words I choose, and get out of the kitchen if you can't take the heat of political discourse.


Now excuse me while I push my bugaboo down the Brooklyn streets in search of a neo-Nazi. I've got some spiffy new accessories to show off.

Tongue Out


I get that in your personal life you would rather spend time with people who are polite and sensitive. But in terms of government intervention do you lean more right or more left in these instances? Would you rather hate speech laws be expanded, kept the same, or diminished?
Back to top

WhatFor




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 5:53 pm
Fox wrote:
That analysis is very astute, IMHO.

It's a way of rhetorically balancing the fact that he doesn't intend to prosecute Clinton, sending the simultaneous messages that "I'm a honey badger who will go after the cast of a Broadway show" and "I'm not going to pursue a course of action that will entrench existing divisions in the country."


You really think he's that calculated? I think this opinion gives him too much credit. If he was that calculating, I don't think they would have had to take away his Twitter in the days before the election. The fact that some of his tweets are happening at 3am also make them seem like impulsive, emotional rants....
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 5:56 pm
Fox wrote:
That analysis is very astute, IMHO.

It's a way of rhetorically balancing the fact that he doesn't intend to prosecute Clinton, sending the simultaneous messages that "I'm a honey badger who will go after the cast of a Broadway show" and "I'm not going to pursue a course of action that will entrench existing divisions in the country."


Thanks! Smile
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 5:57 pm
dancingqueen wrote:
The reason he's rubbing a lot of women the wrong way is not just his opinion that women should go back to traditional roles, though I actually take umbrage with any man or woman telling me what makes me happier. I agree with you that childbearing and being a mommy should be a celebrated choice, and as someone who follows pop culture and reads cosmo I find that there must have been a real shift in recent times. IME being a mommy is very respected and celebrated these days.

He just comes off as finding women disgusting with his descriptions of fat women and cellulite (and hey as a gay man he may truly find women gross). Also his conclusions from the studies he sources often misinterprets or doesn't follow the actual data. I had heard before about women selecting different mates when on bc and its definitely worth further investigation.


I think part of the disconnect is that even the most modern frum woman is a lot more sheltered and insulated than we like to think.

Milo is not talking to us. In fact, he'd probably invite us all up on stage as a show-and-tell exhibit to demonstrate that women can enjoy the benefits of equity without completely trashing traditional gender roles.

Rather, he's talking to young people in their late teens and early 20s who are adrift without any significant religious or cultural anchors. He's talking to young women who are away at college and coming into contact with ideas for the first time that, while interesting in theory, may not be in their best interests from a practical standpoint.

Milo uses cruel wit like a 2" x 4" to get the donkey's attention, so to speak. Since we already more-or-less agree with his position in practice, being hit over the head with a 2" x 4" just seems unnecessarily and shockingly brutal.

But the young women he's addressing aren't questioning whether or how to cover their hair or wear pants. They're not debating when and under what circumstances they should ask a rav's advice. Instead, they're being urged to participate in "slutwalks" and believe that s-xual promiscuity is empowering. For anyone on Imamother, those attitudes are simply not part of real life. Look at our conversations about birth control: we think in terms of optimum family planning, not simply avoiding childbearing.

As for the descriptions of fat women and cellulite, that's nothing compared to what he says about gays, especially off-record (though he's more careful now that he's better-known)! So maybe I've become desensitized.

dancingqueen wrote:
Ps I've never heard of Camille paglia and though I don't have time right now to read a 700 page book, it sounds interesting.


Trust me when I tell you that you definitely don't have time to read it if you have a family or a life. It is a hard, hard read. If you want a flavor of her thinking, look for videos on YouTube. She has this kind of squawky voice that goes up a couple of octaves when she thinks an idea is especially stupid. While Milo uses a 2" x 4" to get the proverbial donkey's attention, Paglia simply refuses to talk to donkeys on the grounds that they're not worth the effort.

So I guess those of us among the hoi polloi have the choice of being warned that we're on the brink of turning into fat, cellulite-ridden harridans or being dismissed as too stupid to bother with. Which I suppose is why many people prefer Christina Hoff Sommers. Her nickname is "Based Mom," and that's about right. She doesn't mince words, but she's not as harsh as the prototypical witty-but-vicious gay uncle and not as impatient as the corresponding intellectual lesbian aunt.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 6:18 pm
WhatFor wrote:
You really think he's that calculated? I think this opinion gives him too much credit. If he was that calculating, I don't think they would have had to take away his Twitter in the days before the election. The fact that some of his tweets are happening at 3am also make them seem like impulsive, emotional rants....


I can't decide. I don't generally subscribe to conspiracy theories. Well, except about Princess Diana being murdered, but we'll save that for a different time. Usually people can barely organize themselves enough to order Chinese food, let alone implement a devious rhetorical strategy.

On the other hand, Trump has played this from the very beginning. The whole "which Trump do you get today? The buffoon or the calculating negotiator?" has worked a little too consistently to be a coincidence.

I think the most important part of the picture, though, is that he's using social media to communicate directly with people, bypassing traditional press entirely. That's a major paradigm shift.

If journalists are smart, they'll seize the opportunity to engage in true investigative reporting. However, media companies are both lazy and greedy. It's a lot more cost-effective to hire a few attractive or at least distinguished-looking people to shmooze about what the President said rather than actually go out and do Woodward-and-Bernstein grunt work.

Recently I read a quote -- I don't remember where or who -- that the only investigative journalist working in America right now is Julian Assange. I think there's more truth to that than most journalists would like to admit.
Back to top

youngishbear




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 7:28 pm
sushilover wrote:
I get that in your personal life you would rather spend time with people who are polite and sensitive. But in terms of government intervention do you lean more right or more left in these instances? Would you rather hate speech laws be expanded, kept the same, or diminished?


It's not about legal action. It's about people being kinder to each other, out of their own free will. The kind of pressure progressives apply is social, not legislative.

Issues are issues, people are people.

Milo couldn't disguss weight gain on bc without calling cellulite disgusting?

As for the body positive movement going too far, I dunno. I wish we were there, but we aren't. Are some people okay with unhealthy weight because of this movement? Maybe. I know that just because I haven't met them doesn't mean they don't exist. I myself still see too many people on the other end of the spectrum.

I think a similar divide exists on the subject of political correctness being too extreme.

Left: We have not yet achieved our goal, that utopian future where people are color-blind, and where women are free to choose their paths without being subjected to unfair standards, expectations, scrutiny, mockery, or criticism. We have so much work left to do! When we reach that day, when people are just individuals, with no one facing prejudice or unfairness due to externalities, then we will lay down our 'weapons' of social pressure and pc policing. We can't retreat yet before the fight is won!


Right: Be realistic! Prejudice will always exist, and it's not the same as hate. You will not fix the world with social pressure. Stop tilting at windmills with your idealistic shenanigans. You are turning good people off with your shaming tactics. Not everyone who uses trigger word x y or z is evil or racist or misogynyst or homophobic. Their freedom of speech is sacred, too, at least as much as the sensibilities of the listeners, if not more (the Constitution didn't mention emotions, did it?) As long as they aren't physically attacking anyone directly, or inciting others to do the same, it can't and shouldn't be stopped.


And so the dance continues.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Nov 23 2016, 9:01 pm
youngishbear wrote:
As for the body positive movement going too far, I dunno. I wish we were there, but we aren't. Are some people okay with unhealthy weight because of this movement?

Absolutely! The body positivity movement started with laudable goals: help women understand what constitutes a healthy body and prevent them from becoming victims of unrealistic Photoshop standards of beauty.

However, when you turn victimhood into currency, people become entrepreneurial. If I'm a victim of unrealistic beauty standards, you're discriminating against me for not meeting those standards. How dare you criticize me, refrain from selling clothes in my size, or feel that I'm not attractive? You're being sizeist!

Like most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. We should be more focused on healthy rather than unattainable beauty standards. We should appreciate a greater diversity of body sizes and shapes. We should encourage people to enjoy life no matter what their sizes. But there are still certain facts we have to face, including the health risks of obesity and the fact, for women, that many men are simply not attracted to obese women.

To me, the worst thing about both ends of the argument is that they end up stifling real research that could help people. We know virtually nothing about metabolic disorders. I've written about his before, but we're literally at the stage of knowledge about metabolic issues that the mental health field was at when they drilled holes in people's heads to let out evil spirits. But if people are screaming for fat acceptance, it's going to be impossible to fund or conduct the kind of reasearch that would explain why I'm still hungry after . . . well, never mind.

The same is true for homos-xuality and gender dysphoria. There's nothing wrong with crusading for equity, compassion, and societal participation to people who have these issues or characteristics. But that means that no one will research what causes either condition or what might be done for people who don't wish to live with their situations.

To me, that's cruel. That's putting a political agenda ahead of my health and ahead of the happiness of people who don't necessarily want to sacrifice their lives to a political cause.

youngishbear wrote:
I think a similar divide exists on the subject of political correctness being too extreme.

British journalist Douglas Murray (think Milo without the peroxide and the mean streak) says: "There's a supply and demand problem with bigotry."

People want to fight bigotry, but the big battles are mostly won in the West. So now we've moved on to concepts like "microagressions" and "cultural appropriation."

You can argue these ideas on their own merits, but it is 100 percent wrong to conflate them with hard-won changes in society regarding race, gender, etc. A white kid wearing dreadlocks is not the same as denying an African-American the right to vote. A child dressed as a Native American for Purim is not the same as the Trail of Tears. But the same word -- racist -- will be used to describe the white kid and Jewish child as well as the old-time Southern politician and Andrew Jackson.

Getting hysterical over things like microaggressions or cultural appropriation isn't just dishonest. It's lazy.

There are plenty of places where the basic ideas of feminism, racial/religious minority rights, LGBT rights, and just plain ol' rule of law are in perilously short supply. However, the loudest people who want to battle bigotry don't seem too interested in fighting it in those locales. Let's face it: arguing with Saudi Arabians over how they treat rape victims is a lot more dangerous and time-consuming than screaming at a college professor who suggested discussing cultural appropriation rather than legislating it.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to be sensitive -- that's a good thing. But when true bigotry is in short supply, there will never be a way to be sensitive enough. There will never be a convincing way to signal good intentions. The target will always be moving. When victimhood is valuable, people want to keep it in the bank.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 24 2016, 12:10 pm
Quote:
But the young women he's addressing aren't questioning whether or how to cover their hair or wear pants. They're not debating when and under what circumstances they should ask a rav's advice. Instead, they're being urged to participate in "slutwalks" and believe that s-xual promiscuity is empowering. For anyone on Imamother, those attitudes are simply not part of real life. Look at our conversations about birth control: we think in terms of optimum family planning, not simply avoiding childbearing.


Well, since we apparently are still discussing this, can you give me an example, as I asked for? Can you describe how his article could possibly effect the change he envisions? Who has taken this article seriously? Please give as much details as possible, because I cannot envision this at all.

As an aside, your comments: (1) imagine a limit on his audience that he never imposed; (2) generalize to millions of women the actions of a select few; (3) reinvent his criticisms.

He is not talking about slutwalks and promiscuity. He is talking about birth control and baby murder, as he calls it at the outset.

Further, the actual number of women who participate in slut walks, for example, to empower their womanhood is much much smaller than you envision. I went to Barnard, I know college girls and feminists, and harlots as well. I know literally one person who might fit your description, out of everyone I ever met.

If you disagree, post some data to support your position. The burden is on the person making the claim.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Nov 24 2016, 12:15 pm
Quote:
There's nothing wrong with encouraging people to be sensitive -- that's a good thing. But when true bigotry is in short supply, there will never be a way to be sensitive enough. There will never be a convincing way to signal good intentions. The target will always be moving. When victimhood is valuable, people want to keep it in the bank.


Just curious if you feel the same about Jews. Do you completely reject the concept of Halacha b'yadu'a Esav soneh l'Yaakov? Because that's "celebrating victimhood" if I ever saw any.
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 25 2016, 12:48 am
Fox said "To me, the worst thing about both ends of the argument is that they end up stifling real research that could help people. We know virtually nothing about metabolic disorders. I've written about his before, but we're literally at the stage of knowledge about metabolic issues that the mental health field was at when they drilled holes in people's heads to let out evil spirits. But if people are screaming for fat acceptance, it's going to be impossible to fund or conduct the kind of reasearch that would explain why I'm still hungry after . . . well, never mind."

Actually research into fighting obesity, including uncovering its causes is a top priority for the CDC and in other public health agencies. Hopefully our president elect won't cut their budget too much like he promised to do to the EPA.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 25 2016, 3:12 pm
Back to the original OP's question, I just went to check what Breitbart has to say about the fires.

Just checked cnn and msnbc and couldn't find any front page headlines. Last night there was a small one on Fox about "arsonists". Maybe there are some that I missed.

I've never looked at Breitbart before for news, but here's what's on their front page now:
(1) Inside the terror fires raging across Israel
(2) Report: "Arson Terrorism" responsible for majority of blazes
(3) Israelis aid Haifa's 75,000 fleeing residents
(4) Arab social media hate rages on: "Allah, make sure petrol falls on Israel instead of rain"

I think I will start reading Breitbart to remind myself that there are good people out there.

Have a good shabbos everyone, and Hashem should keep everyone safe--and send rain!
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Nov 26 2016, 8:16 pm
Laiya wrote:
Back to the original OP's question, I just went to check what Breitbart has to say about the fires.

Just checked cnn and msnbc and couldn't find any front page headlines. Last night there was a small one on Fox about "arsonists". Maybe there are some that I missed.

I've never looked at Breitbart before for news, but here's what's on their front page now:
(1) Inside the terror fires raging across Israel
(2) Report: "Arson Terrorism" responsible for majority of blazes
(3) Israelis aid Haifa's 75,000 fleeing residents
(4) Arab social media hate rages on: "Allah, make sure petrol falls on Israel instead of rain"

I think I will start reading Breitbart to remind myself that there are good people out there.

Have a good shabbos everyone, and Hashem should keep everyone safe--and send rain!


I am looking at cnn right now and the front page has this article link:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/26/......html
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Nov 26 2016, 9:22 pm
I'd sworn I wouldn't get sucked back into this topic, but like the moose frozen in mid-fight, here I am!

Over 24 hours has elapsed between the time Laiya noted the lack of coverage on MSM and the current time. Because websites cycle stories to prominent locations frequently, I don't know when CNN put their coverage in a top position. However, I would urge everyone to actually read the accounts on both Breitbart and CNN.

A couple of things to note:

CNN's coverage appears to be done from Yerushalayim. It's hard to tell if the reporter actually went to Haifa. Breitbart's reporter makes it clear what he is covering personally versus taking from various newsfeeds.

CNN gives ZERO links to sources so that readers can put quotes into context or read additional information that might have been edited because of space concerns, etc. Breitbart gives TEN.

CNN doesn't give attribution for the photos -- or at least I could find any. Breitbart does.

CNN doesn't provide links to the reporters' social media so that a reader can check for possible bias. Breitbart gives links to everything short of the reporter's bank account.

As of about ten minutes ago, when I read through all the comments on Breitbart, there was exactly ONE obviously anti-Semitic guy who was being shouted down from all sides. There was a second guy who doesn't like the Israeli policy of demolishing homes of terrorists. He was being sarcastic but not overly obnoxious. There were, however, a handful of people joking about how the sympathetic coverage is obviously evidence of Breitbart's well-known anti-Semitism.

How this relates to whether Steve Bannon is anti-Semitic is questionable. But it should give pause to anyone who unquestioning believes that outlets like CNN are inherently more reliable than Breitbart.
Back to top

Laiya




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Nov 26 2016, 11:34 pm
Ita Fox.

In addition to the poor quality of the actual reporting that you mentioned (lack of citations and such), the bias is clear as well. The article Marina linked, which I did not see yesterday but I'm glad they finally decided to post an article--leaves the reader with NO HINT of an indication that the fires were started by terrorists.

It is cleverly titled, "Israel detains 23 on wildfires."

Even though Netanyahu made that fact very clear.

How is it even possible to write an article on the subject, NOT quote Netanyahu, AND leave the reader clueless as to Israel's strong evidence that the fires were intended as terrorist attacks?

That's not just sloppy reporting, it's intentionally misleading.

While the Breitbart article does not mince words. Here's the first sentence:

- wrote:
TEL AVIV – The so-called wave of terror sweeping Israel since last year has clearly morphed into the dangerous phenomenon we are currently witnessing in Israel – arson terrorism aimed at causing maximum casualties and damage across the Jewish state.


The only logical thing to infer from all this is that cnn et. al. is equally untrustworthy in its reporting on various other topics as well.

Eta. This was my first time reading Breitbart, which I only thought to do because of the publicity around Bannon and this thread.
Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 27 2016, 1:02 am
And what fault will you find with reporting from the New York Times which doesn't entail supporting a hateful misogynistic racist organization. I don't need to get news from questionable news sources when reliable balanced sources provide news

If I needed more specialized news on a particular subject or region, I am sire there are equally reputable specialized sources to go to.

Front page video and lengthy balanced news article

http://www.nytimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11.....eeast

Earlier story

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11.....eeast
Back to top

chaiz




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 27 2016, 10:15 am
Fox wrote:
I'd sworn I wouldn't get sucked back into this topic, but like the moose frozen in mid-fight, here I am!



Should we start talking about seminaries? Wink
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sun, Nov 27 2016, 10:31 am
chaiz wrote:
Should we start talking about seminaries? Wink


Lol! Only if you're too chicken to discuss Regents Exams! Wink
Back to top
Page 10 of 10   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Facial moisturizer- anti-aging, sensitive, dry skin
by amother
1 Tue, Mar 05 2024, 12:29 pm View last post
Has anyone tried AHAVA skin care products- anti aging?
by amother
6 Sun, Mar 03 2024, 12:16 am View last post
Anti-Semitism in hiring
by amother
2 Tue, Feb 06 2024, 9:35 pm View last post
Anti-aging cream for 30 yr old?
by amother
1 Mon, Jan 08 2024, 11:11 am View last post
Are you taking anti depressants while on Ozempic?
by amother
1 Sun, Dec 17 2023, 10:02 pm View last post