149
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
149 points (87.1% liked)
News
36384 readers
933 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
.
In this case, it looks more like it's Streisand effecting. (Affecting?)
The way I remember that Affect is active. You affect things. Effect is passive, and is the result of something. Affect is a verb (and I think sometimes can be a descriptor). Effect is always a noun. So you can have the resulting effect of an experiment, but if you mess with some variables, you have affected the effect.
Though, in this case, you're turning the noun into a verb, so you could make the case for either use I think. If you hyphenate it though you can leave it as is without thought. "Streisand-effecting.
Years ago I had a CEO of the company I worked at make a similar comment; "affect/effect. No one really knows which one to use." So my contrarian, anti-authority ass just looked it up right then and decided to always know.
According to what I've read just now, she said that amid the vile attacks against Jews in America "people that are afraid of being Jewish at this time are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country."
This: a. Minimizes the violence against Jews and Jewish Gathering places right now b. Makes Jewish suffering secondary to the "real" suffering of Muslims c. Denies the tragic history of antisemitism in America d. Pits Jews and Muslims as two parties somehow against each other, when in reality, both groups suffer whenever racism in America goes unchecked e. Portrays antisemitism as a means to an end - that cold, unfeeling Jews could not possibly understand the suffering of Muslims
Your suggestion that anyone offended by this is paid by some secretive corrupt cabal of globalist to do so...
.
Please educate me; who's sending the checks? Who's receiving them?
.
Do you not know how money works? What do you think well-funded means?
.
Just say you don't know. It's fine. You said something that you thought sounded cool, but you didn't think about what it meant and then you had to save face by resorting to repeated ad hominem jabs. You'll be much happier in life if you just admit it.
.
You've replied to my comment saying that this is a "well funded PR campaign." Yet you're flailing about and sputtering insults trying to explain how something can be "well-funded" but also no one is getting paid and no one is doing the paying. It doesn't make sense and you know it. So just admit it.
You know what, just put your wife on. At least I can talk to someone capable of making sense.
.
I can't believe how far you've missed the point. You are accusing Jews of being upset over a comment that minimizes antisemitism because some nefarious scheming cabal has paid to make people feel that way. You still don't realize how antisemitic that is. You still don't realize that you are the one being targeted and manipulated.
I have challenged you to pause and actually think critically about the wildly unfounded accusation you made. You responded with repeated insults and weird stalking, staunchly falling short of the task. You still haven't come up with any plausible firm or individual paid to "generate outrage," nor an organization paying, nor a smoking gun ad, paid social media campaign, nor commercial, nor any mechanism that this supposed money was used to supposedly influence people.
You're grasping at straws now with vague handwaving at everyone's favorite boogeyman, AIPAC, which spends about 1/1000th as much as each of Saudi Arabia or Qatar.. Israel doesn't even crack the top 10.
I'm finished trying to lead you by the hand to the conclusion that you made an unfounded claim, based in part on antisemitic messaging you have been unknowingly exposed to.
Jews are scared and under physical attack. around. the world. It's not something that started in the past six weeks. It is harmful when millionaire public figures minimize or justify antisemitism.
You clearly don't get it, won't get it, and have no interest in getting it. Here's a list of charities helping Israelis and Palestinians. Stop wasting your breath insulting a vulnerable minority and go do some good.
Hand In Hand Schools
Oxfam
Doctors without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF)
IsraAID
Save the Children
I don't get it, how is it antisemitic to say that jews are being treated like shit? Nowhere does she say she thinks that is a good thing or that she wants that. Honestly do not get how that is any where close to what I would call antisemitism. She isn't even criticizing jews, which if she was I would call reductionist, like saying all Germans are anal retentive or Italians are noisy, or Americans are dumb. Which by the way, I'm a little annoyed I have to point out I'm not saying any of those things my self, they are just examples
But you would say that she is justifying a rise in anti semitism because she is being patronizing, dismissive and infantalizing?
Not everything offensive is antisemetic, although antisemitism is offensive. Conflating the two is where you are confused.
The second paragraph in your response shows you making assumptions that you cannot justify. You do not know me, or my history, so presume not that you do so you do not appear foolhardy.
.