I'd argue that's truer about your post than anything she's said. And you deserve all the responses.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Late Show w/Colbert: Full Extended Interview with Rep. Ilhan Omar
- Thread starter UnpopularBlargh
- Start date
I'd argue that's truer about your post than anything she's said. And you deserve all the responses.
This post is disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. It's her fault she's getting death threats from the most deranged people alive for saying things any of us would say on a regular basis?
"be more sensitive to my feelings" says person placing blame for Islamophobia, xenophobia and racism on the black Muslim woman.
Bold strategy.
Bold strategy.
If we want to retread we can talk about the Benjamins tweet again. And her subsequent responses where she didn't do a very good job explaining what she was trying to say concerning the influence of PACs like AIPAC on American politics and the shaping of policy, including in relation to Israel.
I understand the devotion you and others have towards her as a firebrand, but the fact is that, as AOC has also learned, you can and should be held accountable when you misstep and need to clarify effectively what you were talking about when you say something that can be construed other than the way you intended.
I also think it dangerous to follow someone, anyone, with such zealot-like fervor that you're unable to also see someone's potential faults and want to point out to them. Omar to her credit in response to how she handled things like the Benjamins tweet for instance made a point to listen to the concern of people she considered allies who found how she framed her tweet and the connotations it carried problematic and reuped her commitment to being more sensitive towards those kinds of issues. Which is why it's a bit disappointing when I hear something like this, knowing that she's going to get raked over the coals by conservative media, not to mention New York media, over that. While the degrees to which some have gone, like The Post's front page, are indeed overboard and uncalled for, the feeling at least to me is understandable.
My uncle was okay. One of my friends' parents were in one of the towers but on the lower floors so they made it out. Others were in the surrounding area near Wall Street, or around Battery Park. One missed their ferry in the Atlantic Highlands and was late to work. So my immediate relations were okay at the end of the day. Several others in the surrounding communities though weren't as lucky.
I never placed any blame on her for islamophobia, xenophobia, or racism.
You need to take a step back from the keyboard and breathe a little.
I've not once suggested that she's at fault for the hatefulness that comes her way.
However, it's not unfair for me to point out that how she framed the events of 9/11 in that quote comes off as insensitive, at least to someone like me who has a personal connection to the event.
She didn't do a very good job? It was perfectly clear. I don't believe that your concern is real here. The faux outrage with these two things, both of which are trumped up to begin with, don't come anywhere near putting a foot in your mouth, or any sort of recurring worrying dog whistles, indicating that she has wrong values or anything. Even with your bad faith interpretations, it at most amounts to a dog whistle, nothing more.
The way you talk is patronizing. It's so transparent as well. Omar makes a comment bout AIPAC influence, Dems go haywire and make a huge statement of condemning anti-semitism. Here we have MANY cases of ACTUAL Islamophobia, death threats, and much more, yet nothing from the Dems who supported that trumped up outrage against Omar before.
Reaction to "badly worded statements" -> Outrage and official statement
Reaction to "actual rampant Islamophobia in the house" -> Nothing
THAT is horrible management of your "positions", THAT is putting your foot in your mouth. Not whatever stupid lame duck interpretations you give to whatever criticism Omar has of Israel.
You're more concerned with your contorted interpretations of Omar's statements than Pelosi and other AIPAC buddy Democrats who are actually shitting the bed and taking a crap on democracy. That's telling.
Also to the above conversation that has been happening, why should she have to monitor every little thing she says for the benefit of republicans who are operating in bad faith anyways and will take anything she says out of context as well? Screw pacifying Republicans and centrists on their feaux-care. They ignore the atrocities such as Palestinian apartheid and instead take issue with how she says lobbyists buy influence.
I've made my positions clear on those topics in other threads which pertained to those instances. Don't act like this is the first and only time I've posted in regards Omar's comments or the responses to them, because they aren't. I've followed her just as much as anyone else here.
As such I think it's fair for me to say that I don't think she's an effective communicator, or at the very least she doesn't do a good job of getting her points across without stepping into something problematic.
For all your talk about what is and isn't transparent, you're much more biased in this discussion than I am. You are a huge fan of Omar, I get it. I genuinely believe that she's overall a breath of fresh air in the progressive ranks of the House as well. However that doesn't exclude her from criticism. Or anyone. And just because I'm criticizing her communication on these issues doesn't mean that I'm "cancelling" her, undermining her points, or remotely claiming that she is somehow responsible for any of the hate-filled remarks and threats that come her way. But as we all should have friends who give us a nudge when we fail to meet certain expectations, so too should we be able to point out when a politician, especially those we are fans of, make less than stellar comments which can be distracting towards the good work they are trying to do.
My concern, currently, isn't with other politicians who aren't doing enough on their end to condemn what's been happening with Omar. We've had those threads and I've mentioned how that resolution was a waste of time that didn't mean anything, short of potentially being an embarrassing footnote on the voting records of certain Republicans.
My involvement in this conversation started when it was suggested that people shouldn't complain about what she says, just focus on what she does. My position is you can and should point out when she says something problematic, while still supporting her as a person and her agenda. Thus far I haven't really seen a good argument as to why that's a bad position to have, other than people hand waving away how myself or others may feel about how she's communicated her points in the past. So far I've had my concerns about the 9/11 comment to CAIR be hand-waived as me "acting like a white person" without considering that I might have a personal connection which would make me feel the way I do about those comments. Talk about patronizing. And now I'm being accused as arguing in bad faith, which seems more to me as a way of stifling that conversation as opposed to wanting to acknowledge that the Benjamins tweet was ill-advised at best, so much so that even AOC at that time half-heartedly came to her defense on it, of which people here on ERA crushed her for it.
No matter how you want to slice it, that entire episode was handled poorly. Certainly right-wing media and talking heads take the lion's share of the blame on that but the damage control efforts weren't exactly the best either. In that you're right to blame other Dems for not stepping up to the plate, or those who did not doing enough. But Omar I don't think helped her own cause as much as you'd like to think she did, and she certainly hasn't managed to weave her way around avoiding a problematic soundbite.
Hey, you're putting in some effort to explain yourself, and I appreciate that, good on you. However, you're totally missing the forest for the trees here. To me, it seems like you've gotten a bit blinded by the faux outrage of republicans, by your own exaggerations, and then proceed to totally not care about the actual injustice at play here. The injustice where there's a shit ton of Islamophobia levered at Omar, with a false pretext of anti-semitism, and your "she's not using the word terrorist when mentioning 9/11!!". I mean, you might as well argue that using 9/11 as a shorthand is disrespectful, because you're reducing it to a few numbers.
I don't know what you think here cause is, because she is most definitely helping her own cause. It's to bring attention to these issues, which she has accomplished extremely well. The downside is that she gets harassed and threatened in various ways for it.
Let me clarify here as well, I'm not a follower of Omar. I just have an enormous disdain and hate for injustice. I absolutely hate gaslighting, and that's exactly what republicans are trying to do here, and many Democrats are happily joining in with. Ignore the actual anti-semitism of Republicans, ignore the Islamophobia, focus 100% on "badly worded statements", disingenuinely frame them as anti-semitic, and gaslight the fuck out of everyone. Nah, I can't abide by that.
Especially in the wake of the anti-BDS push. Why does our government have such a laser-focus on conscientious objectors who don't want to support murder?
Although I think we should be having BDS movements like that for more than just Israel. Boycotting Saudi Arabia would be great. Why don't we stop selling armaments that are killing Yemen women and children?
Our whole government is taken over by special interests and it's not just one country. But Ilhan Omar's shining a light on one is hopefully just the start
Her social media game when she runs for president is gonna be something to behold.
Acknowledging anti Muslim sentiment after 9/11 only to hand wave it away in favor of your own feelings on the matter is certainly an interesting position to take.
"Yes violence against Muslims was bad but how dare she not viscerally characterize the hijackings as a tragedy"
My issue isn't that she didn't use the word "terrorist" or use any specific phrase. You're mischaracterizing my issue. I understand the points she was getting across. And in referencing 9/11 juxtaposed to the work of CAIR she was attempting to point out that the actions of a few aren't representative of the whole of a community of peaceful individuals who work tirelessly and selflessly to help their fellow citizens. As well as the acts of terrorists wasn't an appropriate reason for the treatment of Muslims post-9/11, including as I mentioned survelliance of mosques, assaults, harassment, murder, and other injustices. The problem was the framing of those actions in a "look, some people did something, but..." way when that bad thing you're talking about just happened to be the murder of 3000+ people, many more dying or suffering close to two decades afterwards from exposure to toxins in the air following the attack. That's a world-class understatement. One that resonates with people who were effected by those events. There's nothing to gaslight about that. It's a gaffe that begs for clarification. Now certainly there are those that will attempt and have attempted to use it as a cudgel to further attack Omar. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have behooved her to make mention of the things AOC did in her defense, or that she regretted oversimplifying the events of 9/11 while reaffirming her statements about the good work CAIR has done for Islamic relations and the continuing prejudices Muslims face in a post-9/11 world.
Unfortunately the issues she's bringing attention to are having to share the spotlight or be overshadowed by conversations about her own statements which doesn't really do those important issues justice. For instance we're still no closer to having a meaningful or productive conversation about Israel's treatment of Palestine or the potential annexing of the West Bank. Instead the conversation is still about whether or not Omar is an anti-semite, certainly aided by the intrinsic racism and islamophobia of the right. However the results speak for themselves and frankly the narrative hasn't improved for the better in regards to Omar being able to force that conversation in what I'd label as a meaningful way. Again, not all on her because it's clear there's many within even her own party who aren't willing to go to bat for her, but unfortunately that's out of her control. What she can control is her own speech and how she gets her points across.
It's only poorly worded if you deliberately misconstrue what she said and ignore all surrounding context.
There is no massive problem of people diminishing the horror of 9/11 - most of us understand that event as being terrible, consequential to a huge amount of Americans and to the world at large, tragic. There is, though, an imperative to reframe 9/11, to get past some of the more counterproductive ways in which we as a society responded to it. That's all Omar was doing. Again, aside from niche groups like truthers, there is no particular set of wording, tropes, or whatever else that someone can delve into, and somehow play to negative 9/11 stereotypes, somehow mark themselves as one of those Americans who remembers 9/11 and just thinks oh, whatever. There is no particular need for Omar to reinforce that 9/11 was terrible, or that she found it terrible.
In the context of the speech, she was using understatement as a tool to minimize the intended effects of the act, not to minimize the act itself. That's something most people would be able to process just fine if a maelstrom of disingenuousness, racism, and Islamophobia hadn't created an unfair threshold Omar has to pass with her statements, such that she has to continuously prove her Americanness with everything she says, even to the point that apparently you have to ponder her feelings about 9/11.
Is Joe Biden your boy? If he was a black Muslim woman, do you think that "a noun a verb and 9/11" joke would have played? What do you think is more typical: that someone doesn't talk about 9/11 in only the most sacred terms, and then receives backlash; or that someone doesn't talk about 9/11 in the most sacred terms, and no one even feels the need to give them the benefit of the doubt because their Americanness is just taken for granted and of course, as an American, the thought of 9/11 hurts them, too?
And on the flip side, do you not see it as a form of respect that Omar is fighting to cut away at some of the corrosive narratives people have attached to 9/11? She used understatement, deliberately, purposefully, precisely because she acknowledges the gravity of the event.
So your desire for sensitivity seems incredibly one-sided to me. You really aren't seeing how your framework is fundamentally messed up by a toxic politics. Let's say you're correct in that second paragraph and that the backlash she's received has obfuscated the important conversations she's trying to have. This isn't because she's making "gaffes that beg for clarification." Those "gaffes" didn't invent racism, sexism, Islamophobia, or xenophobia.
You aren't even correct about the conversation thing, though. Omar hasn't been perfect - one instance, in particular, she absolutely made a small mistake with her words - but if you don't think that she's opened up space for people to question support of Israel, to criticize AIPAC, to scrutinize imperialistic tendencies, to bluntly criticize war criminals, etc., etc., you're totally misreading the fact that the political establishment (and conservatives, especially) decided to strongly push back against the black Muslim woman courageously speaking the truth.
Well we can start with what's not acceptable and the best example of that was what the NY Post did today. That was horrific. You can condemn how Omar framed the events without posting the moment of impact of the second plane into the South Tower. That's excessive to say the least, abhorrent at worst to show the exact moment that people died on a full page spread as ammo to attack someone who at worst made a misjudgement in her description of what happened on 9/11.
In Omar's case, as a representative of the federal government I think she should make sure to treat the deaths of several thousand people with a bit more reverence than that thing that happened because of some people. She's not a private citizen having a conversation in a bar. She's a member of the House talking to a group of people in an official capacity. Is this on the same level as Trump's "very fine people" comment after Heather Heyer's death? No of course not. But it's typically not good strategy to non-chalantly reference one of the worst attacks on American soil in order to be your stepping off point for any argument.
I don't see how, in-context, you can take what she said and claim offense whilst also recognizing the totality of her message.
At some point with these "controversies" around Omar where people like you constantly have to exclude yourself from the bad actors yet continue to find yourself on the same team of "I don't like her words" need to reexamine if you are in fact the one with the issue and not her.
Cause to me it's not even about nuance or polite critique. It's tone policing. This is like Obama and the flag pin.
And, btw, the only reason you would desire for her to clarify her comments of "so you think 9/11 was just a "bad thing"" was if you dont already presume her to be in good faith.
I mean I don't expect any enlightening interviews from like Fallon or anyone else in the current late night landscape. Colbert is a bit different because his claim to fame is actually overtly political and he had a lot of excellent political interviews in his early Late Show run, which makes his current "lol orange cheeto man" schtick especially disappointing. Pretty steep fall from his 2015 Biden and Rumsfeld interviews to "hey Rep Omar what do you think of people telling you to shut up"
All of the subtext that you just wrote in your first paragraph does not come through in that soundbite. I'm sorry but it just doesn't. Again, I feel that as a representative of the federal government, I think it's important that she treat an event that killed several thousand people, with as a mentioned several more still suffering the after effects due to health problems caused to that event with a bit more reverence than what she did. This isn't her sitting around with a group of friends talking about issues facing Muslims in a post-9/11 world. It's her in an official capacity as a Congressperson reading a prepared statement. At the very least, my issue doesn't have to do with some unbelievable threshold that I only hold her to.
I don't know why Joe Biden was brought up here. I don't think I've ever given an indication that I was in his camp at all. Always though the memes of him were overplayed and didn't really speak towards the kind of person he really was. His joke wasn't great, as true as it was about Rudy who, politically, used 9/11 as a means to springboard himself into the national spotlight. But I'd be remiss to say, begrudgingly, that he did as good a job as could be hoped for in the immediate aftermath of the event, so he did earn some credit for that which was then dropped when his crazy ass couldn't contain itself after Bloomberg got elected.
Her gaffes certainly didn't invent those things. But you can't tell me with a straight face that some of her comments haven't been ill-advised at best. I mean you literally just wrote two paragraphs to explain the subtext of a soundbite. If a comment requires that much clarification, perhaps it's not the best comment to make, no?
The political establishment pushed back, you're correct. That's not exactly the same thing as having meaningful debate in order to effect policy. Instead what we got was a meaningless resolution condemning all forms of hate and the issue was essentially buried under other things with the added BS of having conservative talking heads be able to point back at this whole thing as an example of Omar's non-existent anti-semitic tendancies. It didn't move the conversation. It was a blip that thus far hasn't really shown promise of getting off the ground any time soon, unfortunately.
Just because I think that someone's point is right doesn't mean I have to like the way she went about getting to that point. Especially, as I previously mentioned, I have a personal connection to the events. So I'm giving you all the context that yes, I may be slightly biased in this conversation, given that connection and the things myself, my family, and community went through in the hours, days, weeks, and months after the fact. I don't presume her to be acting in bad faith. I think she made an error in judgement by talking about 9/11 in the way that she did. I view it a bit more serious than the flag pin nonsense for the above reasons.
I also don't really see myself as being the only person/in a group of people who have an issue with the things she said, considering she herself felt the need to apologize at least for the Benjamins tweet. So she herself has acknowledged that she has the propensity to unintentionally hurt people while trying to make an important point.
You don't think nuance or polite critique are a thing in politics? Ok.
Or maybe they are acting in good faith and maybe better wording would shape the reaction more toward the real bad actors reacting so we're not wasting both our times taking about this. It's not like Omar hasn't had difficulties before with communicating to the press or public. Like any politician she shouldn't have to clarify anything, if anyone's asking for clarity in good faith something has gone horrible wrong from the message being communicated.
She's a politician and one of the most high profile figures in the Democratic party - if she were a random poster saying this on ERA nobody would care, but this is the context. Pelosi has got shit for saying bad phrasing in public before, like "All Lives Matter," and she rightly got backlash from the left from it - so that's why it's surprising you're arguing that sort of political decorum to not upset people should be ignored. That's why every politician has to monitor what they say, everyone is meant to do this in that field. Biden is another whose gaffs are legendary and he got in hot water whenever he says something haphazardly. Which is practically every week this year. Of course Republicans will take anything she says on bad faith, agreed on that. Don't see anyone here disagreeing, so why are you conflating that with centrists or Democrats as though neither can say anything critical of politicians you like in good faith? Frankly, it sounds like you aren't able to tell a bad faith argument from a Republican to a good faith argument from a Dem. Which is alarming.
Disagreeing with you on something political is not a sign that everyone is arguing in bad faith. Sure, there are Dems who do argue in bad faith against Omar, like Schumer.
Taking issue with how someone who uses language which triggers Jewish Dems or other minorities should be a concern.
Regarding Palestine that's a stance I agree with you, the Dems need to do far more and I wish they would.
It is possible to care about multiple things at once, as well. This isn't multiple choice.
You do realize no matter what she does whether perfect or imperfect she is going to be attacked. She is a black, muslim, woman in america who has a propensity to speak her mind.
Also a lot more people need to be up in arms about the constant attacks against her because of who she is but I am sure they would rather tone police her instead being her ally. I mean the constant attacks only ramp up the chance of her being attacked by a member of the republican party with physical violence. I mean we are only months removed from that trump supporter sending bombs to people in the mail and another guy just got arrested for threatening her over the phone.
I'm responding to all of ya'll collectively to say that I regret my post from yesterday and I apologize for it. I received a 1 day ban so I couldn't apologize sooner.
I was trying to make a point about her using intentionally inflammatory language while addressing controversial but valid points of view, but my post was very low quality.
When people start getting death threats, yes, they are victims. I was focusing on one tiny aspect of her communication strategy while ignoring the larger issue of the hoards of islamophobes that have come after her. I was wrong and I will probably avoid future discussions on this topic.
Most people who realize they were wrong about something don't come back to state such. Good on you, man. I hope you do participate in future discussion— we need more folks like that.
You have to use extreme hyperbole and then turn that into something you use for political gain. Usually to something totally unrelated to the actual events or the people who were hurt most by it.
Also, you can't be a black muslim woman wearing a head scarf and talk about 9/11 unless you are a puppet who is there to diss on all muslims.
Its pretty simple bro. I can see why people are so angry at her glib talk of 9/11. She should have known better.
nothing i've heard her say over the last few months has been wrong in the least, and the democrats and republicans who have piled on in response are basically inciting violence against her. someone like that nut in new zealand is going to take a shot at her eventually and it will be directly their fault.
It's disingenuous to suggest both groups have had the same issues regarding Omar. Only one group, and a few bad faith Dems (like Schumer) are incited violence against her.
Which is what the GOP are counting on and is why it's absolutely crucial Omar get security around the clock. I draw the line that good faith criticism, when someone can't see a difference between the GOP and Dems they have a big problem. The GOP couldn't be happier to see the Left attack the Dems as a first response when one of their own attacking Omar.
You don't think nuance or polite critique are a thing in politics? Ok.
Or maybe they are acting in good faith and maybe better wording would shape the reaction more toward the real bad actors reacting so we're not wasting both our times taking about this. It's not like Omar hasn't had difficulties before with communicating to the press or public. Like any politician she shouldn't have to clarify anything, if anyone's asking for clarity in good faith something has gone horrible wrong from the message being communicated.
She's a politician and one of the most high profile figures in the Democratic party - if she were a random poster saying this on ERA nobody would care, but this is the context. Pelosi has got shit for saying bad phrasing in public before, like "All Lives Matter," and she rightly got backlash from the left from it - so that's why it's surprising you're arguing that sort of political decorum to not upset people should be ignored. That's why every politician has to monitor what they say, everyone is meant to do this in that field. Biden is another whose gaffs are legendary and he got in hot water whenever he says something haphazardly. Which is practically every week this year. Of course Republicans will take anything she says on bad faith, agreed on that. Don't see anyone here disagreeing, so why are you conflating that with centrists or Democrats as though neither can say anything critical of politicians you like in good faith? Frankly, it sounds like you aren't able to tell a bad faith argument from a Republican to a good faith argument from a Dem. Which is alarming.
Disagreeing with you on something political is not a sign that everyone is arguing in bad faith. Sure, there are Dems who do argue in bad faith against Omar, like Schumer.
Taking issue with how someone who uses language which triggers Jewish Dems or other minorities should be a concern.
Regarding Palestine that's a stance I agree with you, the Dems need to do far more and I wish they would.
It is possible to care about multiple things at once, as well. This isn't multiple choice.
Pelosi should get shit for saying all lives matter because it is a bullshit stance on a substantive basis. Comparing what she said to Pelosi saying all lives matter is terrible false equivalence.
They're both poorly worded phrasing which got the people who said it in trouble with the press and the public, it's about the format not the details where they are alike. Let's not pretend Omar is a politician with a perfect speaking record, and she's not alone in that respect. Words matter, and being a high profile figure means the backlash will be immense (which is why it's important not give ammo to the GOP and not have language which would alienate her own allies, even for minor things - which her phrasing would fall under). Because they're not randoms on a video game message forum. I could compare her to Joe Biden, as well, for his flubs in talking. This applies to every politician in the US, particularly those who have huge profiles in the press. Being a politician like Omar is like being the lead in a Star Wars movie, the whole world is watching every word she speaks.
Oh look, you're Being all Boogie about this again.
But yes, continue doing the thing that you always do which is to criticize her and to side with Republicans. Sure, Signal boost more Islamophobia, that's certainly a "Progressive ™" thing to do. Sure, continue doing the Ｒａｔｉｏｎａｌ and ＡＤＵＬＴ thing of victim-blaming Omar.
Hey, why are you more willing to criticize Omar instead of supporting her? Shouldn't the dems Unify?
This is the only quote that I questioned a little. Hasn't she claimed her Jewish-American peers have "dual loyalties" and do not put America first?
No she hasn't. Maybe you should actually look up the quote.
Since when did criticising Omar over a simple thing like language equate agreeing with Republicans horrific stances against her? Do you want Omar to remain isolated in congress?
Criticism is perfectly ok while remaining united, this is what you're not accepting. How your framing this is weaponising our own unity against us as a cudgel when that wasn't being done by your allies and you wonder why the GOP are laughing at us while they destroy this country. Be better. Stop creating enemies when you don't have to. Build support and protection for Omar, not dismantle the possibilities because of minor disagreements.
The last few months you've just constantly been blaming her for the dumpster fire of an American populace that keeps attacking her. And when you're called out on it, you bail out only to dig up older threads to just get in the last word when no one is looking, and unsurprisingly you're absent in the thread about the latest horror show that's going on around her cause it will look even worse if you do your usual schtick there. It's bullshit. I'm sure you will have a lengthy response ready but I'm honestly tried of reading these kind of posts from you and others trying to rationalise everything.
I've been supporting her opinions against AIPAC and Israel from day one, where I disagree was how she said it which was language that made the Jewish Dems uncomfortable and the fact that I believe politicians should be able to on guard at all times when addressing the public, something which every politician faces. Which I've included recent non-Omar his profile Dem politicians in this very thread. Nowhere in any post I've made did I ever agree with what the Republicans were saying, in fact I've repeatedly outlined in meticulous detail this only to ignored again and again because acknowledging that nuance in my opinion would interfere with the narrative I was ever against Omar.
I've only bailed once, and that was only because of an immensely toxic dog pile - that wasn't a polite conversation. You try sticking around against something like 5-10 people attacking you like that relentlessly, I'm not an idiot who gets baited into dog piles when all the opposition wants is a punching bag. That wasn't my intention to get in the last word, anyone was free to respond at their choosing as soon as I posted - it's not like the threads were locked. I'm absent there because regardless of what I say I'd just be attacked because all I am is a Republican in their eyes. That's the tragedy here. Why would I be stupid enough to get myself in a toxic dog pile which will likely end up like my first sentence again? Threads like that aren't about dialogue or discussion with Dems, its to attack for cathartic emotion appeal. Despite the fact I agree with a lot said there. You want a real discussion I'll be around, but if your intentions are to act in bad faith don't expect me to play games over serious subjects like Omar's safety.
It's bullshit you can't consider what I say is in good faith when that's all I've ever said on this subject. I'm interested in achieving wins against Republicans and AIPAC which cause them to lose real influence, given how Omar's been targeted I'd have thought more of the Left here would be on the same page but I guess not.
When you can't tell a Republican from a Democrat the Republicans have won.
Last edited:
Just slightly more precise and empathetic than to describe it like its nothing different than 80-90% of the everyday nonsense we see in our Social/News feeds: "some people did something". No different than we typically characterize any other similarly tragic event, or even those on a much smaller scale.
Some people did something vile/monstrous/unforgiveable.
Speaking of that, I hope it's not for a while. Because once you become president, that's it. That's the political endgame for you. And it would suck to lose her by the time she's 45.
All Lives Matter is not poorly worded phrasing, it is literally word for word a far right racist motto and Pelosi said it to a black person asking about Black Lives Matter.
The fact that you're equating that with Ilhan Omar talking about lobbyists in a glib manner speaks volumes.
She did nothing of the sort and the fact that you believe she did is exactly why liberals that pretend to be allies to minorities needed to get out in front and shut this shit down. Instead they joined hands with the GOP and went after Ilhan Omar and now the average person believes the GOP/Smear campaign to be fact.
9/11 was the most horrific tragedy in the history of the world, committed by disgusting evil devil people who hate us because they're jealous of how free and great and democratic and innocent we are. We must never forget the unity we had as Americans in coming together to condone the murders of hundreds of thousands of Arabs in completely justified retaliatory wars, and the strength we had as Americans to look the other way as domestic violence and prejudice against anybody who looked vaguely Middle Eastern surged and our civil liberties were tossed aside in the name of defense.
In God we trust. Amen.
Except the whole point that she was making was that some people did something completely unrelated to other people, like her and every other Muslim-American, who were paying the price. Apparently still paying the price.
I don't see how that's any more empathetic. What is the effective difference between "bad" and "monstrous/vile/unforgivable", given the context of what was being said.
I think the standard here of paying reverence to 9/11 in such a way of "we need to cry crocodile tears every time we talk about 9/11" is shaky because you can not convince me that if the same was said about anything else that this standard would be applied. It's quite literally political correctness.
I'm not on board with the idea that the lives lost in 9/11, nor the manner in which they were lost are due any more reverence than, for the sake of the conversation, any other terrorist attack, domestic or otherwise. If you disagree you disagree but we wouldn't be having this conversation if this was about the Unibomber because we haven't attached our national identity into it.
Also...9/11 was almost 20 years ago. The tragedy remains with the survivors and people affected by that day but we can't be outraged as it proceeds to be referred casually less than how we desire. Eventually in the history books 9/11 will just be a thing that happened.
Last edited:
Omar stated, to an audience fighting injustice and discrimination, that they as a whole shouldn't suffer oppression because "some people did something". That statement doesn't minimize the tragedy of 9/11.
Should Reagan have continuously and explicitly blasted the Japanese for the attack on Pearl Harbor when he was talking to the survivors of the American internment camps? Or was one passing reference okay then?
Should we constantly bring up cop-killing thugs when talking to Black Lives Matter groups? Or is focusing on police brutality okay then?
How about when a white Republican shoots down reparations by saying, "The people of today shouldn't have to pay for what other people did in the past"? Are you calling them out for not explicitly stating the horrors of slavery and the slave trade and their ancestral ties thereto?