As I said above about these arguments lacking nuance cough cough, "in reference to Jews" is not only ever so slightly an overgeneralization, but it's also just plain false:Not credibly. I’m still not convinced puppet master is anti-semitic. No one has presented any convincing evidence it’s used exclusively and derogatorily by Jew haters.True but.
Such arguments invariably lack nuance.
Maybe the correct answer was "Not for me and I answer only for my communication."
Couldn't someone say that about the "N" word?
It's not a slur. It's not exclusively derogatory. But when it is used specifically in reference to Jews, as was the case in this thread, it certainly brings to mind the antisemitic use of the terminology.
Shooter made no reference to Bibi's religion, nationality, ethnicity or anything else beyond his individual self. One couldn't even necessary assume Bibi's position as the leader of Israel because Epstein had the same blackmailworthy info on Trump and Epstein was nothing more than an individual citizen.-Bibi is the puppeteer, Trump the puppet.
Why would Bibi be Trump's puppeteer? Because of Trumpstein. Got nothing to do with Jews.
You need to stop moving the goalpost so much. Now that you've carried it to "Shooter didn't explicitly remind us that Bibi is Jewish" territory, you've washed away whatever credibility you had.
Read on. I tackle it more carefully. The n-word and puppet on a string are worlds apart. Plus, shooter didn’t reference Jews, just Bibi. You added the rest.Neither is n*****. And you're glossing over a lot of context.Not credibly. I’m still not convinced puppet master is anti-semitic. No one has presented any convincing evidence it’s used exclusively and derogatorily by Jew haters.True but.
Such arguments invariably lack nuance.
Maybe the correct answer was "Not for me and I answer only for my communication."
Couldn't someone say that about the "N" word?
That's all I was asking you to think about. Like I said in my original response, you can make all the same substantive points without referencing an obvious and ancient antisemitic trope.
And you could point it out to me without being snarky, directly making the ridiculous accusation that I am "constantly" using antisemitic tropes, stereotypes that I "claim" to not be aware of, despite them being "obvious" to anyone (besides the several other posters who also were unaware).
I economized on words, initially, saying Bibi was controlling Trump like he were a puppet. It was obvious (I thought) that I was referring to the NYT report that Trump's war plans were based on Bibi's assessments, ideas that USA military strategists insisted were 100% wrong (and they apparently WERE wrong). I immediately added clarity in stating that the NYT report was what I was getting at. But you went on and on with the snark and constant implications that I was LYING.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
I’ll let these geniuses at The Guardian enlighten you folks snd folkesses:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cartoon/2012/nov/15/israel-gaza
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/25/accusations-of-antisemitism-political-cartoon
“Bell himself is adamant that the cartoon, based on an agency picture of a Netanyahu press conference, is neither intentionally, nor unintentionally antisemitic. He said: "This is a crucial point – this is not about the Jews: it's about Binyamin Netanyahu. It's referring to a specific news image. [The puppets] are a side issue. Binyamin Netanyahu is manipulating the whole situation. He is one of the world's most cynical politicians. An obvious point to make is that it's always going to be an awkward one. It's not antisemitic, it is focused on him as a politician, on his cynicism."”
”Bell is aware that the image of Jews as puppet masters is an antisemitic theme. However, he does not accept that this should prevent him using that imagery to address the actions of Netanyahu, the man. Bell says: "The problem with this whole debate is that the premises are all wrong. The cartoon isn't antisemitic. People may proclaim that it is and [that it] stands in some kind of nefarious line: it has been lifted [from the Guardian website] without permission, and run alongside some terrible examples of nasty cartoons from the Nazi period (which clearly are [antisemitic]). That does not make the cartoon antisemitic. Here lies the problem: once people start dignifying this utterly unfair and unreasonable comparison with faux intellectual terms like 'antisemitic trope' it blots out the fact that my cartoon lacks the central 'trope' of actually being antisemitic. It doesn't generalise about a race, a religion or a people; it doesn't try to characterise any such generalisation: it is a very specific cartoon about a very specific politician at a very specific and deadly dangerous moment. It does employ the trope of 'puppeteer', but that is a trope, not an antisemitic trope… It uses the Star of David because that's what is on the flag, and the menorah because that's what's on his podium. They both say: 'State of Israel', not 'The Jews'. There is a crucial difference. It is not subtle or coded antisemitism to make this point."”
@hhlurker maybe you should continue reading and find out what happened to Steve Bell at the Guardian.