What part was that? I’ve been googling for articles that show actual antisemitic language, but I’m coming up with nothing so far.
This:
“I have been actively looking for videos and information about the Palestinian side for the last 2 weeks or so, following accounts etc. Why? Because Western media only shows the other side. Why they do that, I will let you deduce for yourself.”
Is not a dogwhistle, it’s a very correct insinuation that Western media (who claim to be objective and presenting both sides fairly) are in bed with Israel, politically, and are not trying to report on the conflict objectively. Don’t go and tack-on some “but she must mean that they’re doing it because she thinks Jews rule the world!” bit. Western media (and governments) are doing it because of racism, guilt, and because Israel is a useful pivot point through which to impose influence throughout the Middle East.
The West politically favoring Israel is about as close to fact as you can get. And she said that repeatedly.
But. For some reason, she suddenly wanted to beat around the bush on the same subject and used a common antisemitic dog whistle by accident. What a shame
It’s not a dogwhistle! You’re trying to combine her not calling it out directly in that post with your own assumptions of how it’s meant to be interpreted/ answered in peoples’ heads.
And clearly she was rightfully reticent to call it out directly, because she was fired when she directly called out their genocide and ethnic cleansing!
The studio didn’t even interpret that part as being about that antisemitic trope, they were very clear about why they fired her. You’re in here trying to rewrite the studio’s interpretation to make them seem less bad, by cooking up something “antisemitic” beyond just criticizing Israel.
Again, she had no issues calling it out directly elsewhere. Her coworkers call it out and are fine. And yet…
Could we not cape for the antisemites? Especially because all it does is make it easier for Israelis to continue to conflate a condemnation of Zionism with being antisemitic
Really, where was that? They called it “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”, and weren’t fired? Got any citation, because that ain’t in this article. That would certainly make the studio hypocrites. It wouldn’t mean anything for her, though, since studios are notoriously biased and treat employees unequally; I would not be at all shocked to hear they fired a woman for something that a bunch of guys also said.
Could we not cape for the antisemites?
Could we not treat being too vague about criticizing Israel as being intended to be antisemitic? That seems much more directly to be aiding the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, since, you know, that’s literally what it is doing.
If she’s said something else, that is actually antisemitic, then it becomes a very fair assumption that this was an antisemitic dogwhistle. Please, link to it! Otherwise, you’re just using the worst-possible interpretation of what was said, sans any supporting evidence, to label her a bigot.
So basically find tweets and press statements I already referred to so that you can insist they aren’t good enough.
I have thus far reiterated my original post because I understand you aren’t the only one with reading comprehension issues.
But this is WHY dog whistles exist. They allow bad actors and useful idiots to insist nothing bad was said. And the idea that The Jews control the world’s media is as old as the printing press
You are missing the point; yes, the point of a dogwhistle is to appear innocuous. Which is precisely why, sans supporting evidence, you cannot simply assume that innocuous speech is a dogwhistle. A term that only ever implies something badisn’t a dogwhistle. You have to have other patterns of behavior that back up interpreting the innocuous language as that… and you don’t.
What part was that? I’ve been googling for articles that show actual antisemitic language, but I’m coming up with nothing so far.
This:
Is not a dogwhistle, it’s a very correct insinuation that Western media (who claim to be objective and presenting both sides fairly) are in bed with Israel, politically, and are not trying to report on the conflict objectively. Don’t go and tack-on some “but she must mean that they’re doing it because she thinks Jews rule the world!” bit. Western media (and governments) are doing it because of racism, guilt, and because Israel is a useful pivot point through which to impose influence throughout the Middle East.
The West politically favoring Israel is about as close to fact as you can get. And she said that repeatedly.
But. For some reason, she suddenly wanted to beat around the bush on the same subject and used a common antisemitic dog whistle by accident. What a shame
It’s not a dogwhistle! You’re trying to combine her not calling it out directly in that post with your own assumptions of how it’s meant to be interpreted/ answered in peoples’ heads.
And clearly she was rightfully reticent to call it out directly, because she was fired when she directly called out their genocide and ethnic cleansing!
The studio didn’t even interpret that part as being about that antisemitic trope, they were very clear about why they fired her. You’re in here trying to rewrite the studio’s interpretation to make them seem less bad, by cooking up something “antisemitic” beyond just criticizing Israel.
Again, she had no issues calling it out directly elsewhere. Her coworkers call it out and are fine. And yet…
Could we not cape for the antisemites? Especially because all it does is make it easier for Israelis to continue to conflate a condemnation of Zionism with being antisemitic
Really, where was that? They called it “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing”, and weren’t fired? Got any citation, because that ain’t in this article. That would certainly make the studio hypocrites. It wouldn’t mean anything for her, though, since studios are notoriously biased and treat employees unequally; I would not be at all shocked to hear they fired a woman for something that a bunch of guys also said.
Could we not treat being too vague about criticizing Israel as being intended to be antisemitic? That seems much more directly to be aiding the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, since, you know, that’s literally what it is doing.
If she’s said something else, that is actually antisemitic, then it becomes a very fair assumption that this was an antisemitic dogwhistle. Please, link to it! Otherwise, you’re just using the worst-possible interpretation of what was said, sans any supporting evidence, to label her a bigot.
So basically find tweets and press statements I already referred to so that you can insist they aren’t good enough.
I have thus far reiterated my original post because I understand you aren’t the only one with reading comprehension issues.
But this is WHY dog whistles exist. They allow bad actors and useful idiots to insist nothing bad was said. And the idea that The Jews control the world’s media is as old as the printing press
You are missing the point; yes, the point of a dogwhistle is to appear innocuous. Which is precisely why, sans supporting evidence, you cannot simply assume that innocuous speech is a dogwhistle. A term that only ever implies something bad isn’t a dogwhistle. You have to have other patterns of behavior that back up interpreting the innocuous language as that… and you don’t.