New York Times apologizes for publishing blatantly anti-Semitic cartoon.

[Jub]

So because I'm a liberal (and work in theatre/post on this board, apparently), any criticism of racism on my part must just be biased? And you can dismiss any argument I make out of hand?

I'm saying that we're all biased and that your biases are well known. If you stopped to read what people actually write rather than assuming the worst of everybody maybe you'd have noticed that fact. Bias isn't some inherently bad thing either so long as it is properly disclosed and that both the holder of the bias and their audience are aware of how that bias may color things.

In your case, with your known biases, it seems reasonable to expect that you would look for the worst in a cartoon espousing politics you don't endorse. Your stance on the current political climate makes it clear that you see two camps not divided among right and left but between moral and immoral. On this board, anybody to the right of your personal politics has probably been called some variation of Nazi, Trumpist, Facist, Mysoginist, or worse in their interactions with you.

Given that this is the case, how can we take your assessment of a political cartoon at face value?

(Also, this is off-topic, and a shameful distraction from the very serious issue which we should be discussing, and it should really go without saying, but since lies about me have a way of gaining traction on this board:

Posting on this board is something that I do in spare time. I am under no obligation to immediately respond to Jub's posts ahead of any other posts or anything else I might have to do in my life, and I am not going to make the time when half of his posts amount to harassing me (for which behaviour Jub has been repeatedly warned by the mods in just the last couple of months.)

I don't care if you don't respond to my posts, but you've left many threads in N&P with posts un-replied to only to start a new thread. When people press you for replies you claim time issues, and yet you make time for other posts. It's hard to respect you when you show a consistent pattern of leaving questions unanswered across dozens of threads.

What does that mean?

It means that if you're looking to see a big nose as a sign that a character is Jewish you'll see it even if it's not particularly exaggerated compared to that cartoonist's usual style. If you aren't looking for it you'll probably shrug it off as meaning as little as drawing exaggerated ears on Obama usually meant.



Is this woman also supposed to be Jewish because of her large exaggerated nose?

[Darth Yan]

Few thoughts.

1 Trump as Jewish.

Its a common enough trope to allege those who hold power are secretly Jews. Rupert Murdoch despite being Australian of Scottish descent is frequently alleged to be a Jew, who just keeps his heritage secret, even though these people say Jews control the world. Trump's been very pro Israel so I can see the connection if you disregard his support of Neo Nazi's shouting Jews will not replace us. Its still bullshit, but it seems similar to previously bullshit people say about Jews so not that surprising for me.

2. US is leading Israel.

Hmm. Isn't it usually the other way round with these type of allegations? AFAIK Israel has got more out of the relationship, eg the US recognising Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, recognising Israel sovereignty over the Golan heights, tearing up the Iran deal etc, which has questionable benefit to the US directly.

3. The NYT hires Bari Weiss. Remember that idiot who said Tulsi Gabbard is an toadie for Assad then demonstrated she doesn't know what toadie actually means 1 minute later. Not that she thought toadie meant something else and got the meanings mixed up, she literally did not know what the word meant and she is using it. That looks like she just parroting other people.

Remember when the NYT got confused between the Polish president and Vladimir Putin, because all white men look alike.

Why are we expecting high editorial standards here? If they had high standards once upon a time, it certainly is questionable now whether they still do.

Gabbard did in fact defend Assad and downplay his crimes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not the topic of the thread though, which is why I didn't post a lengthy rebuttal to it myself.

I'm not a mod and can't make you do anything, but in my view a debate on Gabbard would be better suited to the 2020 election thread than here.

[mr friendly guy]

Gabbard did in fact defend Assad and downplay his crimes.

And a child can repeat what they hear their parents saying, like "Trump is a misogynist". That doesn't mean they understand what it means even if the statement is true. Bari Weiss can repeat what she has heard other people say, but she clearly doesn't understand what the words mean because she outright admits it on air by asking people to look up the definition after she used it. Like a child, she most probably heard her intellectual betters use the term and thought it would sound good to repeat it to her friends.

If you knew I was writing stuff when I didn't know what the words meant, why would you trust what I have written to be accurate to the best of my ability? Would you hire me or keep me on staff to write articles for you? If you're the NYT, apparently that's a yes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Gabbard did in fact defend Assad and downplay his crimes.

And a child can repeat what they hear their parents saying, like "Trump is a misogynist". That doesn't mean they understand what it means even if the statement is true. Bari Weiss can repeat what she has heard other people say, but she clearly doesn't understand what the words mean because she outright admits it on air by asking people to look up the definition after she used it. Like a child, she most probably heard her intellectual betters use the term and thought it would sound good to repeat it to her friends.

If you knew I was writing stuff when I didn't know what the words meant, why would you trust what I have written to be accurate to the best of my ability? Would you hire me or keep me on staff to write articles for you? If you're the NYT, apparently that's a yes.

Are you meaning to imply that Donald "grab them by the pussy" Trump is NOT a misogynist? And that anyone who says so is just a child repeating what they've been told? And how the fuck does that have anything to do with this thread, any more than Gabbard did?

I mean, I know you, like Jub, are trying to derail the thread. I know that you're probably doing it out of a mix of personal animus towards me and a desire to downplay/deflect criticism from anti-Semitism. But derail or not, I can't let that pass.

Its also real interesting to me that you keep harping specifically on Bari Weiss, a prominent Jewish journalist and critic of anti-Semitism*, as your go-to example to attack the Times and try to derail a thread about anti-Semitism, after downplaying said anti-Semitism. I'd say that at this point its pretty safe to call it a dog whistle.



*This is not to say that agree with her views on all issues, before someone tries that strawman/derail.

[mr friendly guy]

Are you meaning to imply that Donald "grab them by the pussy" Trump is NOT a misogynist?

Given that I said that statement "Trump is a misogynist" is true, that can only imply I think he is. But apparently according to your level of reading comprehension it means I think the opposite. Oooookay.

And that anyone who says so is just a child repeating what they've been told?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong point is it? So I will dumb it down for you. A parrot can repeat factually correct statements. Doesn't mean I want a parrot to write articles for me, because a parrot doesn't actually understand what they are saying. So why would I want someone writing an article when its clear they don't know what they are talking about? If the statement is correct, its because they heard smarter people saying it, and I can cut out the middle man and go straight to the person making the statement to write an article. Oh wait, you're most probably going to accuse me of misogyny for using the term middle man or something.

And how the fuck does that have anything to do with this thread, any more than Gabbard did?

You commented on the NYT editorial standards in the OP did you not? I also made a comment on their standards by saying it was crap with examples including the Bari Weiss one. I mean its not rocket science to draw the link buddy.

I mean, I know you, like Jub, are trying to derail the thread. I know that you're probably doing it out of a mix of personal animus towards me and a desire to downplay/deflect criticism from anti-Semitism. But derail or not, I can't let that pass.

Sigh. This is not about you TRR. The level of narcissism there is amazing.

Its also real interesting to me that you keep harping specifically on Bari Weiss, a prominent Jewish journalist and critic of anti-Semitism*, as your go-to example to attack the Times and try to derail a thread about anti-Semitism, after downplaying said anti-Semitism. I'd say that at this point its pretty safe to call it a dog whistle.

Buddy, I was mocking holocaust deniers online when you were like what, barely out of high school. I know its common on the Left these days to accuse people of not being ideologically pure enough, but my skin has gotten pretty thick from being on SDN so you can fire away with your bullshit accusations. As to why I use Bari Weiss example, because its pretty funny really. Just like how it was funny the NYT mistook Putin for the polish president even though the two men don't look anywhere alike aside from the fact they are both white and male.

Oh wait its anti semitic to make fun of someone doing stupid thing if that person just so happens to also be Jewish. Good to know. I will just continue to ignore your false accusations then.


I would also like you to show where I downplay the antisemetism here. How do I do that? By pointing out it uses some of the standard antisemetic tropes like non Jewish people who support Israel are secretly Jews.

[Darth Yan]

Weiss has a track record of islamophobia and anti Palestinian bigotry

Gabbard’s still a supporter of assad

[Alyrium Denryle]

So because I'm a liberal (and work in theatre/post on this board, apparently), any criticism of racism on my part must just be biased? And you can dismiss any argument I make out of hand?

Guess you've decided to align yourself with the Alt. Reich tribe.

Reported for lying, vendetta, and racism.



(Also, this is off-topic, and a shameful distraction from the very serious issue which we should be discussing, and it should really go without saying, but since lies about me have a way of gaining traction on this board:

Posting on this board is something that I do in spare time. I am under no obligation to immediately respond to Jub's posts ahead of any other posts or anything else I might have to do in my life, and I am not going to make the time when half of his posts amount to harassing me (for which behaviour Jub has been repeatedly warned by the mods in just the last couple of months.)

Jub is an idiot, and being mistaken does not mean he's lying. The same goes for the being an idiot with respect to racist dog-whistles, because *of course* portraying a Jew with a disproportionate nose is anti-semitic.

As for the Vendetta, he certainly has one of those; but pointing out your behavioral track record is not, strictly speaking, part of that. You are just a known quantity and criticizing you for it is fair game.

So, this is directive to both the children. You're fucking adults. Act like it.

[wautd]

The NYT now has banned all political cartoons in its international edition. Talk about a draconic reaction that punishes all cartoonists.
Never a good day for freedom of speech when the media starts preliminary self censure for fear of political pressure

[Elfdart]

Since the NYT Op-Ed pages are an open sewer of lies, stupidity and race-baiting (and were even before Bari Weiss and Bret "I Love Pinochet" Stephens came along), maybe they should get rid of that section of the paper, too.

[Gandalf]

The NYT now has banned all political cartoons in its international edition. Talk about a draconic reaction that punishes all cartoonists.
Never a good day for freedom of speech when the media starts preliminary self censure for fear of political pressure

On the other hand, if they find shutting down cartooning easier than not being racist, maybe this is a net gain for journalism?