Facebook is doing their part.
Facebook is doing their part.
The line was somewhat less direct than that.
From the Palestinian activist in question:
She’s been getting a constant wave of Islamophobic/rape/death threats ever since, BTW.
Do you agree with the activist’s assessment that Clinton’s mischaracterization of Omar’s tweet is tantamount to jumping on the right-wing bandwagon and vilifying the representative?
Remember the context; the beat up over Ilhan Omar’s tweet came just days after the publication of multiple death threats directed at her.
Also keep in mind that from the perspective of the radical left, the Clintons are also right wing.
Fair enough. Though the representative’s exchanges with Chelsea Clinton and Meghan McCain seem to have gone differently.
I don’t recall Ilhan and Meghan directly interacting. Meghan’s main thing was her meltdown on The View, after which she was roundly mocked by the Jewish left for attempting to appropriate Jewish identity for herself.
AFAIK she didn’t. She mentioned something about McCain’s dad’s warmongering and racism, but she never dignified McCain’s meltdown with a direct response, which seemed wise of the representative. In general I think Omar handled both situations pretty well.
For some more explanation of why the Islamic community is not much more fond of the Democrats than they are of the GOP, see this thread:
What she said was at best stupid and insensitive, and ignoring that or trying to contextualize that is a bit hypocritical from the people I see it from. She used Twitter snark poorly and said something anti-Semitic despite not being an anti-Semite. Because “greed” has nothing to do with the centuries of propoganda saying Jewish dark money is the true cause of X in the world (the whole octopus analogy), and there’s no way she is completely unaware of that history.
I know a lot of people don’t want to hear that, but I don’t see how anyone could see what she said as being anything worth praise even if her motives behind the sentiment were noble.
I do, however, think Rep. Omar has been more than appropriate and gracious in her response to what she did. She didn’t back down on the parts that are accurate, and conceded she made mistakes at the same time.
Could you please clarify – was she talking about supposed Jewish greed, or about politicians who take AIPAC’s money? And did she even use the word “greed”?
I literally said she didn’t use greed, but I understand your gut reaction.
1.5 million blocked. Even if many were posted 10x by the same people that’s a lot of horrible people out there. And bots, of course.
Actually that would be an interesting thing for Facebook to check. Put their sweeping surveillance powers to good use (pardon me while I vomit).
Um, not to get nitpicky, but you wrote,
She used Twitter snark poorly and said something anti-Semitic despite not being an anti-Semite. Because “greed” has nothing to do with the centuries of propoganda saying Jewish dark money is the true cause of X in the world
The quotation marks around greed right after discussing something she wrote signal that you’re quoting a word she used in what she wrote. It wasn’t my “gut reaction,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
Would it help if I acknowledge that the reverse of what Rep. Omar did happens constantly with Congress critters and probably hourly with right-wing media?
I realize it’s a double standard to an absurd degree, and I know that nothing happens to the reverse situation. Because there isn’t a massively influential lobby fighting for their side over every Islamiphobic statement made by a politician.
I think it was just carelessness. Her comment was criticizing AIPAC, which as a lobbying group is in fact about money. And while I’m sure Rep. Omar knows the history, I’m fairly certain she didn’t think about how the tweet could reasonably be misconstrued due to the sensitive nature.
The main reason I think Clinton and McCain’s respective responses to that tweet are not the same is because Clinton and Omar reached an understanding and McCain basically attacked her. Now, I don’t think Clinton was entirely correct, but I understand the point it wasn’t a great phrase to use in a tweet where it was bound to be seen out of context. OTOH, it’s not the representative’s fault twitter is a shitty platform for discourse.
What bothers me is that I think some people are looking for a beef between Omar and Clinton that simply isn’t there, or perhaps I really am just not seeing it. Now that’s a separate issue from the activist confronting Clinton at the vigil, for which I have less context, but if it was based solely on Clinton’s IMO inaccurate criticism of Omar’s tweet then I think it’s a reach. That said, if a majority of the Muslim attendees really were uncomfortable with having her there because of it, then regardless of the argument she should not have attended, as it would be disrespectful.
Just to add, I think this is why Clinton’s criticism was off-base and is getting so much push-back. Rep. Omar said something that could be read as anti-Semitic when taken out of context, and as such is perhaps not the wisest phrase to use when discussing the issue, but it itsn’t in itself actually anti-Semitic. Combined with the fact that so many Zionists have historically intentionally conflated any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, I can see why it doesn’t sit well with many progressives.
Honestly, I don’t think there is a beef there but I’m glad someone called Chelsea out. @reactionabe is right that Chelsea has enough public influence that she should also be careful about her choice in words and actions, and frankly her weighing in on the issue wasn’t necessary or helpful or insightful. Poor choice of venue aside, the one who spoke out is also right - regardless if she did speak out against Rep. Omar’s comments and then defended her later when was the last time Chelsea spoke directly against other influential people’s Islamiphobic comments? The equivalent to what Rep. Omar said is spoken constantly and publicly with no repercussion about Muslims.
I agree entirely. And it’s also worth pointing out that Rep. Omar used a less-than-ideal phrase to make a nonetheless valid point and the House basically passed a resolution implicitly censoring her for it. Them doing the same when it pertains to phrases sensitive to Muslims and Islam is unthinkable, and indeed Congresscritters use problematic to outright Islamophobic language to discuss Islam all the damn time without a single repercussion or official push-back. There is zero doubt there is a huge double-standard.
Right, but I think we all can acknowledge that a statement without context that is read offensively is a problem of not being sensitive to the issues - especially when it comes to race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation. That’s certainly an issue we try to raise awareness of in these comment sections.