Whatever one can think of Musk's political orientation (I personally dislike it, his anti-wokism has become too extreme for my taste), if some Jewish organisations appear to engage in political activism of a specific kind, isn't it legitimate to criticise their political stances? Or should they be shielded from criticism because they're Jewish? Or should criticism be directed as towards no one in particular, to avoid mentioning their religious/ ethnic connotation?
We have to be careful when a powerful majority group member comes along to demonize a minority. Saying “they are evil, they hate us, and they want to destroy us” is the playbook of every polemic who wants to use minorities as easy excuses for the ills of the world.
When powerless minority’s to this to the majority, it’s also objectionable but it’s less immediately dangerous.
>isn't it legitimate to criticise their political stances
Yes.
>should they be shielded from criticism
No.
>should criticism be directed as towards no one in particular
No.
Frankly I don't really think these are challenging questions, but I also don't think the answers affect the (un)reasonableness of Musk's comment given the specific words of the thread he was replying to.
There was no nuance in his post, despite there being ample room for it.
Nor would "nuance" have helped when the substance was him agreeing with bad stuff said about jews. Like, what would the nuance be? "Actually I believe the exact opposite, nuance yannow?"
He could have posted "the bad stuff you said about jews was wrong". But nope, he did the exact opposite. He agreed with the bad stuff said about jews. Nuff said.
It was just him agreeing. Period.
Any other post is a distraction. Other posts don't cancel out this one showing how he feels about jews.
Musk appears to think Jews hate white people, or at least push an agenda to make them become hated. How, and why I don’t know but that’s the post he agrees with.
He also simultaneously says the Jews should not be killed off.
It’s not really a whole lot of nuance, but I suppose it must be said that Musk is playing the both the victim and the pure white knight here. He wants to look sympathetic and yet strong.
I'd amend that to thinks there are Jews who hate. Obviously not every Jew hates whites, or is even the sort of leftist who typically spouts anti-white rhetoric and promotes destructive policies in Europe and the US.
But finding examples is not hard - at least until a few years ago, the ADL advocated for ethnonationalism for Israel and mass immigration for the US and Europe. Curious, no? The head of I think the SPLC keeps a tracker on his wall for when whites become a minority in the US.
There's also fun people like Noel Ignatiev who campaigned to "abolish the white race". Susan Sontag also had "amusing" opinions about the topic, if memory serves.
These people and organizations are obviously only some Jewish people, but they are prominent and organizations like the ADL do use their ethnic status as a shield from criticism.
That they exist is not up for dispute, a few searches will find all kinds of unsavoury stuff.
Your perspective is interesting. The problem is that it doesn't jive with reality. Your amendment is inappropriate because, based on elmu's words, he doesn't seem to "think there are jews who hate", he seems to think jews do, as in the collective people, as in a religion/ethnicity based stereotype.
That's what his post said, and he had room within the character limit if he had anything else to say or clarifications to make before posting.
I find it odd that they feel the need to do that kind of advertising. They seem like the company that has made it as a brand and should be best served by broadcast advertising, word of mouth, paid/unpaid placement, etc.
You're ignoring the fact that he's repeatedly attacked advertisers by name for leaving, for example for "hating free speech" or being "too left-wing", and that conservative influencers have in the past rallied these efforts by calling for boycotts.
You're focusing on whether his attacks would be morally legitimate, which is besides the point (that hasn't stopped Musk in the past). His base would find it convincing, because many on the right refuse to admit that it was antisemitic.
Hardly. Yet another storm in a teacup to drive up emotions again. Hence 'pause'.
Pausing advertising for Twitter / X to clean up the mess on there and once everyone has calmed down for bit and is fed up with the coverage of Elon Musk 24/7 in their heads, Apple (and IBM) will continue to advertise once again, business as usual.
I'm yet to see the uproar by Apple fans of Apple's so-called 'ethics' in China whilst they're profiting and benefiting from forced labor, just like when Facebook was called out for profiting from a genocide.
> Apple's so-called 'ethics' in China whilst they're profiting and benefiting from forced labor
Just like almost every single other company which is making consumer electronics? And I don't think the conditions in Foxconn factories making Apple stuff are below average working conditions wise compare to the rest of China.
The worry about China is odd. Human rights abuses are illegal in theory.
If the US, believes China is so corrupt that it turns a blind eye to slavery then it should ban trade with that burgeoning slave state. We shouldn’t expect companies to do investigative work into actual crimes, nor make judgements about the morality of international trade.
Lately it seems that people no longer look to governments to do their job.
People ask for Uber to investigate rape cases, rather than the police.
People expect universities to determine guilt on felony cases, rather than the actual judicial system.
We should stop. We set up centralized government so we would end private fiefdoms. We cannot give private groups this sort of mandate. They don’t deserve it and cannot be trusted with it.
Somewhat interesting that the full context of the thread is not published or any discussion around it, only the one sentence from Musk and a few words from the post to which he was responding.
It is the nature of Twitter to divorce things from context. It's a micro-blogging service with a strict character limit. We can't expect people to seek out context or nuance in that ecosystem.
If one can't comment on something without opening up one's comment to accusations of anti-Semitism (a problem most people on Twitter do not have), when one is the owner of Twitter, perhaps one could stand to comment less.
Well the problem in this case is that there was an exchange of multiple tweets, but you can just pull a nitter link of the one offending tweet and taken in isolation it looks hateful. If you take the full exchange it doesn't read as hateful to me.
musk: "The ADL unjustly attacks the majority of the West, despite the majority of the West supporting the Jewish people and Israel.
This is because they cannot, by their own tenets, criticize the minority groups who are their primary threat.
It is not right and needs to stop."
whatsupfranks: "Yes, but this is not fair to say or truthful to say that ‘Jewish communities’ promote dialectical hatred towards white. Say what you want about the ADL, but don’t generalize the Jewish community."
musk: "You right that this does not extend to all Jewish communities, but it is also not just limited to ADL"
musk: "And, at the risk of being repetitive, I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind."
Any context would do. I only see some allegations that link to other allegations.
My gut reaction to claims like these, especially such severe ones, is always to be extremely suspicious about them. Especially if they are made about someone people want to see failing.
This is the era in which we should all re-calibrate our baloney sensors to be less benefit-of-the-doubt.
The benefit of the doubt is giving the fascists room to win.
p.s:
> I only see some allegations that link to other allegations.
Yeah, Twitter is pretty shit for discovery these days since Musk broke the way it works without being logged in under a Twitter account. I solved that problem by not caring; I quit Twitter years ago and I'm not going to re-up to workaround it getting worse.
It turns out I don't actually need to know everything everyone says on a topic. I can choose to ignore the signal on Twitter as "Too broken to care."
Want a conspiracy, I wonder if some of these negative thoughts are driven externally (external countries). It is cool to hate rich people don't you know.
Did you read the Tweet Musk was replying to? What he said was much more broad and hateful than the much more specific opinion that "It's okay to be white" is not usually used in a hateful way. Musk chose to be broad on purpose - it's a common tactic for this kind of provocative shitposting. I.e., purposefully declining to distance yourself from obvious implications like any honest person would with just a few words or choosing a different context for your comment. The result is that your social/political enemies get (rightfully) upset with you, but you've left yourself a margin in which you can use weasel words to defend yourself and claim that your critics are trying to censor your innocent speech, or whatever.
There is a strong racist ideological movement against "white people" in modern academia and society in general, and the ADL is fully aligned with this.
Reading the Wikipedia and nothing else, Whiteness Theory just seems to try and identify and define the concept of a “white” racial group and the notions associated with that group.
It’s pretty neutral.
And it’s interesting because by default people are ethnocentric, and don’t identify strongly with large groupings like country or race.
This is just the racial equivalent of a text describing the emergency of nationalism.
[Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has\-a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which "white" people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one's body, in one's mind, and in one's world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts' appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness's infiltrated appetites-to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning ("never again") or as temptation ("great again"). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.]
"Whites learn to be white. That suggestion by Thandeka is that whites are not born white. They have to become white. And her suggestion is that white children who were not white originally - they were born human. Little by little, they have to be abused into becoming white humans. And this abuse is sometimes physical - of being physically disciplined into whiteness, such as being bullied into whiteness. That's a phrase I like to use, whiteness as bullying, but it's also psychological and cultural, and it becomes with caretakers and guardians. Not the least of which - the more important caretakers are of course the white family, parents etc. but it extends to the white nationhood as a caretaker, the white social system, the white social welfare, the white governance system. They also discipline and abuse white humans into whiteness."
— Education professor Zeus Lombardo
as a couple more egregious examples. The extra fun part is that the terms are chosen that you can talk about white people and whiteness as horrible evils, or how Noel Ignatiev said we should "abolish the white race" and when people understandably get offended, you can say it's just a concept, why so angry. That wouldn't fly with any other ethnic group.
Beyond the over generalized statement that racism was invited by white people, there is nothing wrong with the book.
If it’s really for 4 year olds, even that statement might be fine rather than delving into the complexity of what systemic racism is, and why it can exist against white people in other nations where they are a minority.
Simplifications happen all the time in books aimed at preschoolers. For example, they would usually teach that America was “discovered” or that Native Americans and the settlers got along in thanksgiving harmony and nothing else.
The ADL is a major Jewish organization that is widely supported by the American Jewish community. It's not some tiny irrelevant fringe group within their community. He explained further in the same thread.
1. The initial comment and reply on Twitter made it appear that Musk was possibly referring to all Jews.
2. His subsequent replies in the same thread clarified that this was not what he had in mind, as he was referring to powerful influential subsets of Jews such as the ADL.
If you are completely stuck on #1 and cannot understand or accept #2 then I cannot help you any further.
1. The initial comment was about jews, not the ADL. I've linked it below [0]. "Jews" != ADL, and he was talking about the former, not the latter, no matter how many failing Jedi mind tricks you try while handwaving away elmu's jew hate.
2. Your subsequent sophistry trying to pretend that his later replies somehow cancel out his initial reply (which hated on jews, see #1) is unconvincing, hence why nobody believes it except a few fans of his. It doesn't matter if he regretted his first post and tried to backpedal from it over an hour after he was widely condemned for it. He still made it.
If you are completely stuck on #2 and cannot understand or accept #1 then you cannot be helped any further.
The post referred to "Jewish communities". The ADL is a major Jewish organization massively supported by and representative of the Jewish community. He clarified his response in subsequent replies down below in the same thread. Geez.
They changed the definition in 2022 from: "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."
to "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."
According to the article you linked, the 'white people' definition was in use from 2020-2022, and then they broadened the definition in 2022:
"Since 2020, the ADL had described racism as 'the marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges White people.'"
"As of Friday [February 4th 2022], the group’s new and 'interim' definition states that racism 'occurs when individuals or institutions show more favorable evaluation or treatment of an individual or group based on race or ethnicity.'"
white privilege doesn't preclude being disadvantaged or struggling, what a weird hangup
> having "white privilege" then yes it is racist by definition. When kids are taught that white people are inherently evil
oh, okay, I see I am speaking with someone who is delusional, and likely has a chip on their shoulder.
If you can come up with evidence that any significant number of kids are being taught that white people are, and I'm quoting you here, "inherently evil", I'll eat my hat.
The issue of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in schools has been a subject of intense controversy and public debate for several years and many states have banned it already. Many states have legislated against it.
There is an abundance of legal documentation you can read to find out why.
Do you know what Critical Race Theory is? Or its superset, Critical theory? If it's taught at any level below highschool the US is probably the best educated country in the world, and critical thinking should be really high (is that why the less wrong movement emerged from your country?). In any case, I would be impressed, but I would understand the reasons to not teach it too early.
Yeah I studied mathematics and computer science at post graduate level, including formal logic, and consider CRT to be a pseudo-intellectual field of "study" that actively destroys critical thinking. There is no intellectual rigor in that. They produce indoctrinated midwits and are lobotomizing young people.
Merely having "critical" in the title does not mean that it actually teaches critical thinking.
Critical Theory has absolutely nothing to do with teaching critical thinking.
> is that why the less wrong movement emerged from your country?
I live far away from the USA in a very "progressive" country.
What? I understand why people think that its usefulness is overblown (I do too), I understand calling-it pseudo-intellectual too. That's in my opinion a mistake, because my huge issue with it is that it is too intellectual, with almost no real, prescriptive value (too much contradictions). I also think that its writers like to smell their own farts, to take an image from South Park.
But 'not critical thinking'?
I'm not calling you a liar, but are you sure you learned critical theory in your field of study? What was taught about it? Or were you just suffering from second-hand exposure (like you talked to sociology students)? But critical theory is basically applying critical thinking to... Almost everything,and especially social relations and norms (which is why it's not really useful 99% of the time).
I think I have to illustrate it a bit: it was used in archeology (and linguistics) with success. Basically : a lot of European 'war chiefs' tombs were discovered in the 19th century by people who thought only men can use weapons. Someone who took their critical theory course seriously said: 'can we check those bones again to see if they had bias?', and, as easely predicted, having weapons in a cairn did not meant the skeleton was male, thus we no understand info-european culture better than before (which is more in line with ancient Celtic culture than Judeo-Christian culture, especially when it comes to females).
It has to be credited for change in the teaching culture too. The 'teachers must learn as much as they teach' is a direct relative to critical theory. Is that what you are against then? I think I like that position in my mind, but some learn better under pressure and rather have authoritarian teachers (I know I do), so in the end it's a negative,i agree.
Like I said, it's not pseudo-intellectual, it's too intellectual to be effective. The ideas are nice, the praxis is limited. It's not a materialist theory. I also disagree with like 60% of CT critic of Marx (the only think they got right was the critic of ideology, but tbh I think this originally was from Foucault, so not new at all).
Ultimately, I think the best critic of Critical Theory is one that weren't really aimed at it, Baudrillard's hyperreality. (I'm stopping here, sorry, I would have to type twice as much to explain why, just read Baudrillard Simulacrum, it's the most interesting conservative thinker of the era imho) (and yes, he is conservative).
"We are united by no single set of presuppositions but, rather, by a shared commitment to close reading, rigorous thinking, and the pursuit of what Marx famously called “a ruthless critique of everything that exists.”
And it goes on to a list a bunch of Cultural Marxist bullshit. It is basically Neo-Marxism. Indoctrination into their twisted belief system and political revolutionary ideology. "Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things to make way for their bullshit utopian vision of society. I reject it outright. You are entitled to disagree. This is just my personal opinion.
> Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things
Exactly what I'm talking about.
Look, it seems you are passionate about it, but you act like CT modern/young proponents. Critical Theory is overblown, because of its limited praxis and because it is mostly symbolism, signaling. It should have died 30 years ago. And yes, the same signaling as in 'virtue signaling' (this is also a neo-marxist/postmodern word btw). By engaging in both (mostly) wrong and superficial criticism, you are signaling yourself, and seems to attribute to CT a power, reach it does not have, not really. You are attacking symbols and representation, but not the idea itself (which is totally part of my criticism of CT), thus your criticism is unactionable (has no praxis, see the similarity?), and you won't convince anyone using it as a cornerstone of their research that they're wrong.
Admittedly, if someone use it as a cornerstone of their research, that research won't go that far, or is pseudoscientific (psychoanalysis), but using it as a limited tool is alright.
[edit] and according to the site you linked, it is taught to doctoral students, which is fair, I think at that level most people know to use a tool like that.
Meanwhile in the real world we now have 4 year olds reading this evil product of Cultural Marxism. Just one small example. Many states have legislated against it because it is becoming an actual problem for society.
I don't see anything from critical theory there: the first sentence maybe? As it is an idea's genealogy (is it true BTW? Is the origin of racism the 16th/17th century? But even if it is, this is like 10% of the work, the idea behind the genealogy is finding the origin of idea, it's sisters and cousins.).
This in fact is typically something that is interesting to critisize: where do those ideas come from? Who wrote this? From which country? Who is addressed by it?
And that's what I mean when I say CT is mostly useless (when it's not used on historical disciplines): even with responses to those questions, what can we do about it? It's useless.
I don't know what cultural Marxism is? Are you talking about historical materialism?
This is how it ends up with Critical Race Theory being force fed into people that end up writing these Children's books. This is how it is in practise in the real world.
> I don't know what cultural Marxism is?
Critical Theory IS Cultural Marxism, at least part of it.
The academics in this field are openly and proudly Marxist. It is a Marxist field of study.
OK, I don't think it is, but I obviously won't research who the author of this book is (I highly doubt she/he is a CT academic, as those are pretty rare anyway outside of Germany), so I guess the conclusion is that when you take a sightly complex theory outside of academia, it becomes a huge mess because people are too dumb to read by themselves (That makes CT a bit like particle physics, which, yeah, fair, you might be right).
So I checked, Cultural Marxism is the modern version of Cultural Bolchevism (those idiots couldn't even really create a new name, not really surprising tbh). It's allegedly supported by those pesky 'communist jews' and you might want to read around that and learn about who you learned that word combination from, before any further reading (I'll still advise you to read Baudrillard, but I fear it might only be interesting to standard conservatives).
I'm sadly not interested in reading Evola, but I know a bit about Gentile through a postfascist friend, and unless you read as much as he does, I want to advise you on that: neo-fascism/neocon is mostly whiny paranoia. One reason I did like the intersectionnal movement is its whininess, but god at least they don't whine as much as neofascists. Their 'thinkers' don't have any new idea since the late 60s, through Evola (and since the 30s if you want ideas that aren't just dumb), and their big 'new' idea from Renaud Camus was born in 1906, and is basically protofascism, before it integrated Nietzsch's philosophy and collectivism through the military. The Cultural Marxism seems to be the exact parallel to Cultural Bolchevism in Germany, so I guess they did read a little? Gosh I can't believe I didn't made the link the first time :/. But yeah, you should check that.
p.s. you sure seem to say marxism a lot, are you sure you know what it means? You haven't actually articulated any specific complaints about it, other than you don't like it because it criticizes systemic racism or something? Or that it seeks change? That'd be good if true, not bad, obviously. For example, here's a quote from you:
> "And it goes on to a list a bunch of Cultural Marxist bullshit. It is basically Neo-Marxism. Indoctrination into their twisted belief system and political revolutionary ideology. "Critical" as in rejecting and overthrowing the established order of things to make way for their bullshit utopian vision of society."
rephrased without fox news scare jargon:
> It teaches people about the world so they can make it better
Marx is referenced constantly throughout all university curriculum on Critical Theory. He is a foundational thinker in the field.
I quoted one example in one of the above comments in this thread you are replying to, which you obviously did not read. Try actually reading something before replying.
To insist that Marx and his revolutionary ideology has nothing to do with Critical Theory makes you look incredibly stupid and ignorant here, especially to students and lecturers of CT.
In your flagged response to the above post, you admit to lying to make your point (incidentally, if your claims were true, you wouldn't need to lie), then you attacked me for pointing out you lied, then you insulted autistic people, then you attacked me again. Are you sure you're on the right site? Maybe gab or truth social would make you feel at home?
Either way, keep it classy, the rest of us will keep making the world better regardless of your crazy conspiracy theories copied from random hard right conspiracy theorists' tweets, or gabs, or whatever.
If you can come up with evidence that any significant number of kids are being taught that white people are, and I'm quoting you here, "inherently evil", I'll eat my hat.
Try really hard to remember the components of your claim:
–>schools<– were –>teaching<––>kids<– that –>white people<– are, and again, I'm quoting you here: –>"inherently evil"<–. Instead you link to a tweet with an image of a book that says no such thing. Your "evidence" proves literally none of the components of your claim, and you needed all 4 to not be wrong. Your post shows no schools, no teaching, no kids, and nothing you claim is being taught. That's a quadruple failure.
Making up such nonsense claims to prove your point is shameful, and not really in the spirit of this site. Perhaps twitter better suits your conspiracy theories? Maybe you can get elmu to retweet you.
Dig1t 17 minutes ago | root | parent | prev | next [–]
The ADL also defines racism as something that only white people are capable of.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/04/us/anti-defamation-league-rac...
They changed the definition in 2022 from: "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."
to "The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."
The article says the exact opposite of your/dig1t's comment. The definition you're saying they changed to is actually the OLD definition that the leadership in 2022 moved away from because it was ridiculously narrow.
Just curious, did you actually RTFA that you're misquoting?
This is a good point. It is not clear if “You have said the actual truth” is an endorsement of the post elaborating on a Twitter user’s explanation about why they agree with Hitler about Jewish people. Such a vague statement can be interpreted in so many different and nuanced ways
sadly, this is a common occurrence for elmu, saying something horrible with a clear intention to troll people who disagree with horrible things, claiming his intentionally ambiguous post was misinterpreted, etc.
Those who give him the benefit of the doubt after him having done this so frequently are likely just fans of his engaging in sophistry.
musk: "The ADL unjustly attacks the majority of the West, despite the majority of the West supporting the Jewish people and Israel.
This is because they cannot, by their own tenets, criticize the minority groups who are their primary threat.
It is not right and needs to stop."
whatsupfranks: "Yes, but this is not fair to say or truthful to say that ‘Jewish communities’ promote dialectical hatred towards white. Say what you want about the ADL, but don’t generalize the Jewish community."
musk: "You right that this does not extend to all Jewish communities, but it is also not just limited to ADL"
musk: "And, at the risk of being repetitive, I am deeply offended by ADL’s messaging and any other groups who push de facto anti-white racism or anti-Asian racism or racism of any kind."
To me, it does not sound like Musk hates Jews, honestly don't know how anyone can take that away from this exchange.
You clearly have not read the post everyone is discussing, which doesn't mention the ADL at all. It agrees with a post railing on jews. Not the ADL. "Jews".
Here is the post in question, I urge you to read what everyone is actually discussing:
"You have said the actual truth" in response to a post railing on jews. What he said after that is irrelevant, because the only appropriate responses to posts railing on jews is flatly ignoring or condemning them. Agreeing is the literal opposite.
The posts I quoted are literally follow ups to the exact thread that everyone is talking about.
Musk has had a previous series of exchanges and controversies specifically with the ADL as well since they started a multi-brand advertising boycott immediately after he bought the company. That’s why he mentions it.
"You have said the actual truth" is what elmu said in response to a post railing on jews.
---> What he said after that, about the ADL or whatever, is irrelevant <---, because the only appropriate responses to posts railing on jews is flatly ignoring or condemning them. Agreeing is the literal opposite.
You can't literally agree with nazi shit and then try to walk it back claiming you meant the opposite.
“The only appropriate response” implies that Jews cannot be criticized or questioned in any way. Reading the exchange it is very obvious that musk does not hate Jewish people and is not saying anything hateful about them.
If I understand it correctly, Musk is criticising the ADL for having a policy the implies that only whites can be racist because of white privilege… or something to the effect?
Am I missing something? What’s the big controversy here?
The ADL's definition:
"The marginalization and/or oppression of people of color based on a socially constructed racial hierarchy that privileges white people."
The article seems to say that the ADL stopped using that definition years ago. Why did he wait until this week to tweet about it? Especially by replying to a vague tweet about "Jewish communities"? Seems more like damage control to me
That doesn't make sense to me. If that's the case, why is he talking about "Jewish communities" instead of naming organizations or groups he has a problem with?
The funniest/saddest part is that "it's okay to be white" and the ok hand sign are literally just 4chan trolling trying to demonstrate how unhinged their political opposition is, and the hook gets swallowed every time.
It's a consensus organization that 90% of Jews right and left don't love but can generally agree on trusting for determining what is antisemitic and what isn't
Calling out the ADL’s racism isn’t antisemitic. It’s anti-racist. Here’s a simple test, would you call out racists regardless of their ethnicity? If the answer is yes, it’s not racist. If no, then you are racist. Period.
I believe the ADL is not immune from being racist and has arguably engaged in racism, but I also believe that the post Musk was lauding was unreasonable and hateful. They aren't the mutually exclusive opinions you are implying they are.
If that person had made a comment in the same format with the same tone about white people, I would feel the same way.
He conflated the ADL with western Jewish populations, though, and agreed that Jewish communities as a whole have been spreading anti-white hatred, not just the ADL.
>> Jewish communties have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.
>> I'm deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest shit now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities that support flooding their country don't exactly like them too much.
>> You want truth said to your face, there it is.
> You have said the actual truth.
> The ADL unjustly attacks the majority of the West, despite the majority of the West supporting the Jewish people and Israel.
> This is because they cannot, by their own tenets, criticize the minority groups who are their primary threat.
People are going to read "Jewish communties" as "the Jews" with posts like this. The posters know it, we know it, and the advertisers know it.
In positions like his, Musk should damn well know it too. It doesn't matter how unreasonable that is or isn't, it's clear how advertisers are going to react to something like this.
People are reading it like that because that is what those words in that order mean. A different tweet an hour later, backpedaling from those words, doesn't change their meaning.
Without saying anything else: I’m tired of seeing the word antisemetic used as such a thoughtless hate cliche. Palestinians are also Semites speaking Arabic and Hebrew.
This seems pedantic - I think it's well understood that "antisemitism" means anti-Jewishness despite the definition of the word Semite. Sometimes words from the same root have varying meanings, colloquially, which eventually come to be definitive differences. That's just language. It doesn't have anything to do with whether it is a "hate cliche" (not sure exactly what you mean by that).
The word “antisemitism” was popularized in late 19th century Germany by Jew-haters looking for a ‘scientific’ racial justification, since the traditional religious justification was becoming unfashionable. It has never meant anything else.
“Semitic”, on its own, is a language group. But for some reason I can't possibly imagine, nobody ever says “Ethiopians are semites too”.
> Extremely racist. Said about any other race it would be roundly condemned. The ADL is immune from criticism despite being an inherently racist organization. Why?
Unfortunately, you are not going to get a grown up answer to this question here, since many of those unpopular questions are ready to be shut down immediately.
For the others, let's keep it civil and we can all agree that no race should be hating on another race. Doesn't matter if you're white, black, green, orange, blue, whatever.
I wonder if this is a staged controversy to draw attention away from the CyberTruck's recent failings. Many on HN believe that Musk operates at a higher plane of existence, so maybe it's related?
His behaviors seem more like personal coping dysfunction to me. Maybe it was more beneficial in the past where everyone else was making their volume, but here it mostly just burns future good will, and for what?
No one is going to have a lot to sell this year, but people who would have bought a US EV when capacity normalizes are going to buy a Chinese EV because he has bothered to make this personal connection that overrides any abstract ethical concerns.
ADL showed a lot of ethnic bias in "exposing" hamas simpatizers compared to the demographics of such simpatizers. This organization and others (ACLU,BLM,...) hide behind "mighty missions" to covertly push narratives of its boards, revolving doors to political/influential positions.
Usually such organizations focus mostly on "awareness" (manufactured consent, political propaganda) and fund raising ( guilt based extortions and publicity stunts / tax write off for corpos), most of their funds get eaten in administrative (good salaries) / fund raising expenses instead of helping whatever cause
