|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 06 2018 15:38 KwarK wrote:
...
If it sounds like a regular Nazi speech with the word Jew switched for globalist, that’s what it is. It’s a pretty simple rule, nobody innocently using the word is going to run afoul of that.
Does that mean that the Nazis are ranting about "globalists" now instead of Jews, or that a different group (potentially with some overlap) has worked out how to apply the old hateful rhetoric in a new context?
|
United States41984 Posts
On August 06 2018 15:51 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 15:38 KwarK wrote:The problem being that the ones who use it as a dog whistle aren’t some irrelevant minority and include the current president. It’s not hard to tell the difference either. If someone talks about the responsibilities of a global citizen in the context of global warming or whatever, they’re trying to express the idea that environmental catastrophes don’t respect national borders. If someone talks about how globalists control the media, they mean Jews. It's quite clear to any fluent English speaker that the term "global" has many uses and possible connotations, but it's also not very hard for those not so informed about the alt-right to assume that the word globalist is simply a variation of the word globalism, which dictionary.com defines as "the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations", a definition which of course doesn't at all evoke anti-semitism. The connotation of these words definitely depend on context, unlike, say, an out-and-out racial slur. If someone from Hong Kong or South Korea used the terms globalism and globalists interchangeably, I wouldn't suspect that they were irrationally prejudiced against a specific group of people with ties to some country in the middle-east.
That’s exactly my point. If it doesn’t sound like Nazi rhetoric with the word Jew switched for globalist, probably fine. The only reason we have an issue is that it is used like Nazi rhetoric by the alt-right and current administration.
|
5930 Posts
On August 06 2018 15:51 reincremate wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 15:38 KwarK wrote:The problem being that the ones who use it as a dog whistle aren’t some irrelevant minority and include the current president. It’s not hard to tell the difference either. If someone talks about the responsibilities of a global citizen in the context of global warming or whatever, they’re trying to express the idea that environmental catastrophes don’t respect national borders. If someone talks about how globalists control the media, they mean Jews. It's quite clear to any fluent English speaker that the term "global" has many uses and possible connotations, but it's also not very hard for those not so informed about the alt-right to assume that the word globalist is simply a variation of the word globalism, which dictionary.com defines as "the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations", a definition which of course doesn't at all evoke anti-semitism. The connotation of these words definitely depend on context, unlike, say, an out-and-out racial slur. If someone from Hong Kong or South Korea used the terms globalism and globalists interchangeably, I wouldn't suspect that they were irrationally prejudiced against a specific group of people with ties to some country in the middle-east.
Truth be told, I don't think I've heard anyone use the term "globalist" outside of Twitter and Reddit. There's already terms for people who support globalism.
I suspect that's why a lot of people automatically jump to the conclusion that its a dog whistle because there's a lot more conventional terms for people who support globalism and free trade such as neo-liberal (economic liberalization via privatization and free trade) or neo-conservatism (active promotion of American ideals on the international stage via diplomacy or military action).
GH in this thread probably isn't going to rail against globalists. He's going to rail against neo-liberals.
|
United States41984 Posts
On August 06 2018 15:52 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 15:38 KwarK wrote:
...
If it sounds like a regular Nazi speech with the word Jew switched for globalist, that’s what it is. It’s a pretty simple rule, nobody innocently using the word is going to run afoul of that. Does that mean that the Nazis are ranting about "globalists" now instead of Jews, or that a different group (potentially with some overlap) has worked out how to apply the old hateful rhetoric in a new context?
Mostly the former. It’s no different from ranting about thugs in the inner cities etc. Same old rant, one word changed for deniability.
Again, there really aren’t that many conspiracy theories about a secret group of nationless others who control the media, banking, and are responsible for socialism. You could call the group anything you wanted but nobody is going to hear it and think you’re talking about the Irish.
|
On August 06 2018 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
I want to have an argument about if the un right to self determination extends itself to a mandate of heaven approch to world governments or if it implies an inherent capitalist democratic implication for all involved.
Are those the only two choices? :D
On August 06 2018 15:58 Womwomwom wrote:
GH in this thread probably isn't going to rail against globalists. He's going to rail against neo-liberals.
I won't speak for GH, but I would certainly rail against neoliberalism over globalism, but I am also not against "free trade" necessarily. Left wing populists are generally against things like the Investor-State Dispute Settlement tribunals. It has more to do with fighting against exploitation and crony capitalism, not the protectionist nationalism of the right. Free trade also encompasses heavy regulations in the way of buffer stock commodities which provide a parameter of price stability (that "invisible hand" that right wingers love so much lol). In fact, a leftist approach would be more likely to create another buffer stock of labor to peg the economy with and create an anchor to provide even more stability.
So yeah, not only will I jump on that dog whistle from the alt-reich, it's also completely fucking moronic. Though, I try to be more critical of my own side as I feel that is more important to clean your own house- or own side of the street first. We already know what to expect from the right.
It should also be noted as to what in the hell people see as being "fair trade"? A country that receives another's labor, natural resources and finished goods in exchange for monetary credits gains a huge boost to quality of life standards. A net exporter does not "win" as much as people seem to think. Perhaps put a better way, a net importer "wins" far more than people seem to realize. The entire paradigm of the trade wars is often quite ridiculous.
|
On August 06 2018 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
I want to have an argument about if the un right to self determination extends itself to a mandate of heaven approch to world governments or if it implies an inherent capitalist democratic implication for all involved.
I have no idea what this means. Can you expound?
|
On August 06 2018 09:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 08:08 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 07:47 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 07:21 kollin wrote:On August 06 2018 04:57 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2018 03:13 kollin wrote:On August 05 2018 09:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 05 2018 09:52 Gorsameth wrote:On August 05 2018 00:46 screamingpalm wrote:On August 04 2018 21:02 Sermokala wrote:
A smart democratic successor would act as if trump never existed and operate as if they took over from obama. Trumps legitimacy and power has always come from people overreacting to him. See stealthblue calling America a failed state. Ignoring the causes and core issues has been a losing strategy for Democrats. Progressives with a populist economic message could help to change that. Sadly running on 'Bring coal back' and 'minimum wage jobs should feed a family of 6' might get you votes from idiots that believe you but it won't actually help the country. Democrats have plenty of idea's for these people. But when they set up training programs to help out the sons of coal miners to find a new job they use it to learn to become a coal miner instead. These people don't want a realistic solution, they want a time machine. It's not so much that they want the coal mining jobs back (some of them might) it's that they want the straightforward good paying work back. You're not wrong though that they'd be better off building a time machine than thinking they are going to vote their way out of it with our 2 parties. I think the problem also is that the creative destruction brought about by capitalism, while clearly causing profits to skyrocket, bringing a billion people out of poverty in china etc, is tearing apart the fabric of social life that was formed by occupation in America and other post-industrial countries. The 'straightforward' element of the good paying work can't be underrated - if people are having to retrain every few years, rather than every generation, to work in new and different sectors, the social identity and security that work provided is lost. The anger from this process is undoubtedly expressed at the ballot box. That's more the creative destruction wrought by technology than by capitalism. otherwise I agree. It's a pity that the anger often expresses itself in destructive ways rather than constructive ways. Technological development is how capitalism at this stage of its development continues to sustain itself - the two can't be entangled. And yes, the idea that the NSA or whatever has been infiltrated by 'globalists' literally makes no sense unless you believe it's the Jews (I'm assuming you typoed and meant disentangled) I disagree; I think the two can be sufficiently disentangled for it to be a useful and clear point that the changing in the social fabric due to changes in industry is a result of technological changes foremost, though capitalism also has some effect on it in pushin the changes forward rather than sticking with economic waste for the sake of social order. I did, the perils of using a phone to post. I think the rapidity of innovation would be nowhere near what it is now without the impetus for growth that capitalism demands - that innovation not just being technological, but also in terms of 'more efficient' company organisation or whatever that results in people losing their jobs. The pace at which modern life is altering and the demands of the free market are closely related, and is, really, the key contradiction at the heart of American neoconservativism. more efficient company organization per se has very little effect on job loss as far as I know, what sources do you have on it? It's mostly tech replacing people (or shifting them to other positions) that I've heard about. all societies like growth, capitalist or not; people like stuff. If there's a way for people to get more stuff they tend to want that. Soviet Union had a lot of technological invention, and I'd say they weren't capitalist. I suspect the rapidity of innovation is a function of how much money is spent on research and development; and it's simply the case that in modern times it's possible to spend a lot more on that than in the past. (and that it has been steadily growing since the start of the industrial revolution). I'd also ask what you're comparing capitalism to for this discussion? and/or how you're defining it. Basically, since I'm disputing how much to attribute to capitalism as opposed to technological change, I want to get a clearer sense of what it would mean (in your perspective) to establish that the cause should be attributed one way or the other. I'm not clear what your point on neoconservativism is, but while it may be interesting, it seems irrelevant to the specific point I'm arguing on, and I'd rather not go off on a tangent.
We're getting bogged down on technology. The important part is the unemployment resulting from it. That happens under capitalism for obvious reasons, and can also happen as a result of outsourcing, inefficiency within a state's industry, etc etc. This unemployment was not occurring under the Soviet system as a result of technological change (whether you want to call it state capitalism or socialism or whatever). The unemployment is key to what I was originally talking about, and it's a necessary result of a capitalist system that does not care about its workers beyond requiring the minimum consent to sustain itself.
|
On August 06 2018 10:28 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 10:21 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 10:18 Nebuchad wrote:
I have a hard time reconciling a love of free markets and a willingness to limit their scope to your own nation. Unless we are in full economic fascism mode (which maybe we are, that's not a pejorative in this context) I don't see how that works. Does the US (or any other nation) have free trade with China? How about even “fair” trade? Australia has a free trade agreement with China. Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 10:26 JimmiC wrote:On August 06 2018 09:52 KwarK wrote:On August 06 2018 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On August 06 2018 05:29 KwarK wrote:
Globalists has always been Jews lol. The secret group of people within every nation who don't belong to the race and don't share the culture/religion/language/blood of the nation but are instead loyal to their international fraternal brotherhood. Also they control banking. And they're working together to destroy nations through creating global governments etc. It's literally the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
xDaunt's shtick has always been that he's not a Nazi, he just says all the same things as them. This is just another example. He won't say that globalist means Jews, but he will agree that the (((globalists))) like Soros are the enemy. Uh, no. Globalists definitely does not mean Jews in the context of globalism vs nationalism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is really missing the big picture. Globalists include anyone who seeks to subordinate the interests of the nation state to global interests and institutions. This is a very broad category, though George Soros is certainly in it. Your disagreement can be summed up as “you’re forgetting the Jew-lovers, it’s not just Jews”. Seriously, take an honest look at the rhetoric of the rest of the anti-globalist crowd sometime. None of its new. How do the globalists your talking about justify trumps support of Israel if they hate jews? I'm interested in the mental gymnastics. Jerusalem.
Also, Israel is essentially an ethnonationalist state - why wouldn't a Trump supporter love that?
The idea that xDaunt's original proposition - the US intelligence agencies are working against US national interests because of their loyalty to the globalists - makes any sense without resorting to some sort of Jewish conspiracy-esque conspiracy is literally insane. XDaunt's and others thinking is a direct result of the contradictions within the neoconservative positions they try and inhabit: unable to accept or formulate any critique of capitalism, and thus unable to really analyse globalisation, the negative effects of globalisation cannot be attributed to the structural processes encouraged by capitalism, but rather the Je-uh...globalists who use globalisation to assert their own power over the world. It is an inability to separate US national economic interests, the interests of global capital, and the economic interests of ordinary Americans that blights their way of thinking (hint: it is not usually possible to just choose 2 of these and assume they can be aligned through policy at any given time for any sustained amount of time). The process of globalisation is a valid one to critique, and to want to resist, but the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd.
|
5930 Posts
On August 06 2018 16:29 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 13:25 Sermokala wrote:
I want to have an argument about if the un right to self determination extends itself to a mandate of heaven approch to world governments or if it implies an inherent capitalist democratic implication for all involved. Are those the only two choices? :D Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 15:58 Womwomwom wrote:
GH in this thread probably isn't going to rail against globalists. He's going to rail against neo-liberals. It should also be noted as to what in the hell people see as being "fair trade"? A country that receives another's labor, natural resources and finished goods in exchange for monetary credits gains a huge boost to quality of life standards. A net exporter does not "win" as much as people seem to think. Perhaps put a better way, a net importer "wins" far more than people seem to realize. The entire paradigm of the trade wars is often quite ridiculous.
Funny thing is that China's manufacturing is getting too expensive these days so they're exporting a lot of their manufacturing in industries like textiles to South East Asia and Africa. Ivanka Trump's Chinese shoe factory was looking to move manufacturing to Africa, which tells you the changes that are happening in China.
Chinese manufacturing is trying to move into the higher profit margin industries of brand name capital and final goods. They're actually making a lot of good quality consumer goods now at very good prices like Xiaomi who seem to make every single thing under the sun. It doesn't make any sense that America wants to move back to the same industries every developing country wants to get out of. They don't want to be making Trump's 2020 KEEP AMERICA GREAT banners for $1 each lmao (this is actually a real thing, they were racing to beat the tariffs on China).
I've consistently said it but Trump's tariffs don't make any sense from a "Make America Great Again" standpoint. They're fundamentally a tax on the consumer, it works when it prices the (foreign) competition out of the market but it doesn't do shit when consumers and industries need those products regardless of cost. What is Trump going to do, put a tariff on TSMC products? Good luck with that, just about every computing device with a non-Intel CPU or GPU uses TSMC's process. American consumers will just have to pay more, you're not convincing Qualcomm, Apple, AMD or NVIDIA to build their processors elsewhere.
|
On August 06 2018 18:44 Womwomwom wrote:
I've consistently said it but Trump's tariffs don't make any sense from a "Make America Great Again" standpoint. They're fundamentally a tax on the consumer, it works when it prices the (foreign) competition out of the market but it doesn't do shit when consumers and industries need those products regardless of cost. What is Trump going to do, put a tariff on TSMC products? Good luck with that, just about every computing device with a non-Intel CPU or GPU uses TSMC's process. American consumers will just have to pay more, you're not convincing Qualcomm, Apple, AMD or NVIDIA to build their processors elsewhere.
You've nailed it 100%. It is a failure to understand potential scarcity of resources rather than currency that a sovereign can create at will. A complete misunderstanding of the macro vrs the micro economy. As well as being oblivious to how the market actually functions.
On August 06 2018 17:45 kollin wrote:
[…] the idea it is being orchestrated by globalists rather than instigated by capital is absurd.
|
|
|
United States41984 Posts
On August 06 2018 23:42 JimmiC wrote:This discussion got me interested in the topic, so that part was great because there is a lot about it which I didn't know. From what I've done to this point it is not a Left vs right thing as it appears that one thing that sadly the Far right and the Far left can agree on is antisemitism. Show nested quote +Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.[20] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."[21] Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":[16] Show nested quote +Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.[vague]
Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
Holocaust denial
Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena") And some of these new forms of antisemitism have shown up on this forum, from the left as well. With something like racism it is important to attack the racists and not your political opponents. Because if you do you are attacking some non-racists and alienating them, it also protects some within your side.
He appears to have conflated Israel and Jewish people with many of those points. I disagree with that position. You can oppose the policies of the Israeli government without being an antisemite, just as you could criticize South African apartheid without being anti-white.
Obviously some people can be both a critic of Israel and an antisemite but it is intellectually lazy to combine the two groups.
|
On August 06 2018 23:42 JimmiC wrote:This discussion got me interested in the topic, so that part was great because there is a lot about it which I didn't know. From what I've done to this point it is not a Left vs right thing as it appears that one thing that sadly the Far right and the Far left can agree on is antisemitism. Show nested quote +Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.[20] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."[21] Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":[16] Show nested quote +Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.[vague]
Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
Holocaust denial
Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena") And some of these new forms of antisemitism have shown up on this forum, from the left as well. With something like racism it is important to attack the racists and not your political opponents. Because if you do you are attacking some non-racists and alienating them, it also protects some within your side.
Many of those aspects conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Anti-Israel attitudes can exist without antisemitism.
|
|
|
United States41984 Posts
On August 06 2018 23:54 JimmiC wrote:Yes, he goes on to talk about the differences. Show nested quote +Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."[19] I also thought this video was good and 5 mins long. https://view.vzaar.com/13802625/video/hd
I don’t think Israel should be dismantled because it’s been a few generations now and I don’t believe in the sins of the father argument. My own experience being on the other side with regard to the British ethnic cleansing and occupation in Ireland also informs that view. It wasn’t a legitimate state when it was founded, but very few were, what matters is that it is now. But the current Arab exclusionary state of Israel has to change, both for moral reasons and because they’ll never find peace if they don’t.
Not destroyed, but certainly rebuilt from the foundations up to end the institutions that are incompatible with an inclusionary peace. More or less what GH has to say about the US with slavery I think, although I won’t put words in his mouth.
|
The discussion at hand isn’t wasn’t specifically about Nazism, but that phrases that had worked their way into the political vernacular have roots in anti-Semitic communities. And a denial of that basic fact. I will be the first to say that language evolves over time, but in this case the term globalist has not transcended its roots in anti-Semitic communities. Much like States Rights never escaped its roots in southern bigotry.
|
On August 07 2018 00:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 23:54 JimmiC wrote:Yes, he goes on to talk about the differences. Cotler elaborated on this position in a June 2011 interview for Israeli television. He re-iterated his view that the world is "witnessing a new and escalating [...] and even lethal anti-Semitism" focused on hatred of Israel, but cautioned that this type of antisemitism should not be defined in a way that precludes "free speech" and "rigorous debate" about Israel's activities. Cotler said that it is "too simplistic to say that anti-Zionism, per se, is anti-Semitic" and argued that labelling Israel as an apartheid state, while in his view "distasteful", is "still within the boundaries of argument" and not inherently antisemitic. He continued: "It's [when] you say, because it's an apartheid state, [that] it has to be dismantled – then [you've] crossed the line into a racist argument, or an anti-Jewish argument."[19] I also thought this video was good and 5 mins long. https://view.vzaar.com/13802625/video/hd I don’t think Israel should be dismantled because it’s been a few generations now and I don’t believe in the sins of the father argument. My own experience being on the other side with regard to the British ethnic cleansing and occupation in Ireland also informs that view. It wasn’t a legitimate state when it was founded, but very few were, what matters is that it is now. But the current Arab exclusionary state of Israel has to change, both for moral reasons and because they’ll never find peace if they don’t. Not destroyed, but certainly rebuilt from the foundations up to end the institutions that are incompatible with an inclusionary peace. More or less what GH has to say about the US with slavery I think, although I won’t put words in his mouth.
The trouble with your approach (and it's one I entirely agree with) is that there's very little difference between your solution, and just returning to a world without the state of Israel because it conceptually has to be Arab-exclusionary (unless it's going to be Muslim exclusionary, which hardly seems much better).
|
|
|
Seems like progress even though one can't actually ban podcasts only the person doing said podcasts.
Facebook has banned four pages run by the American conspiracy theorist Alex Jones for “repeated violations of community standards”, the company said on Monday.
The removal of the pages – the Alex Jones Channel Page, the Alex Jones Page, the Infowars Page and the Infowars Nightly News Page – comes after Facebook imposed a 30-day ban on Jones personally “for his role in posting violating content to these pages”.
Following that suspension, a Facebook spokesperson said: “More content from the same pages has been reported to us – upon review, we have taken it down for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanising language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”
The spokesperson noted that, despite the focus on Jones’s role in spreading conspiracy theories around events such as the 9/11 attacks and Sandy Hook school shooting, “none of the violations that spurred today’s removals were related to this”.
Facebook’s enforcement action against Jones came just hours after Apple removed Jones from its podcast directory. The timing of Facebook’s announcement was unusual, with the company confirming the ban at 3am local time.
Jones, who is being sued by the parents of children murdered in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting for claiming the attack was a hoax, is the host of the daily Alex Jones Show podcast and his platform Infowars produces another five podcasts.
All of those shows were removed from Apple Podcasts save for one, Real News with David Knight, which at present is still on the platform.
Apple does not host podcasts, nor does it have any financial relationship with those it catalogues on its directory. Instead, Apple Podcasts is simply a list of links to podcasts hosted on independent servers around the world. But the service is still the most important single platform in the podcasting industry, driving a substantial amount of traffic to the podcasts it features on its homepage or in its charts.
Publishing platforms have faced strong pressure to take action against Jones and Infowars over the past few months, but Apple was the first major company to sanction the broadcaster in its entirety, narrowly beating Facebook to the punch. Other platforms, including YouTube, have taken down specific pieces of content produced by Jones or Infowars that breached terms of service, but have allowed the publisher to stay active on their sites.
“Apple does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users,” an Apple spokesperson told BuzzFeed News, which first reported the removal. “Podcasts that violate these guidelines are removed from our directory making them no longer searchable or available for download or streaming. We believe in representing a wide range of views, so long as people are respectful to those with differing opinions.”
Spotify also took action against Jones on Monday, removing every episode of his podcast The Alex Jones Show from its platform. The music streaming service had previously removed specific episodes of the show, but left the bulk of the archive up, before tightening its enforcement. Spotify has still left three other Infowars podcasts live on the service, however.
“We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community,” a Spotify spokesperson told the Guardian. “Due to repeated violations of Spotify’s prohibited content policies, The Alex Jones Show has lost access to the Spotify platform.”
Facebook suspended Jones’s personal profile from the site for 30 days in late July for what the company said was bullying and hate speech. But he continued to regularly appear on Facebook after the suspension, appearing in livestreams hosted by other accounts and even making first-person posts to his personal page by publishing them using the accounts of other administrators in Infowars.
Since founding Infowars in 1999, Jones has built a vast audience. Among the theories he has promoted is that the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington were staged by the government.
He has also promoted a theory that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked by left-wing forces to promote gun control. The shooting killed 26 children and adults at the elementary school in Connecticut.
Jones is being sued in Texas by two Sandy Hook parents, who are seeking at least $1m (£770,000), claiming they have been subjected to harassment driven by his shows.
Neither Jones nor a representative for Infowars was available for comment early on Monday.
Source
|
On August 06 2018 23:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 23:42 JimmiC wrote:This discussion got me interested in the topic, so that part was great because there is a lot about it which I didn't know. From what I've done to this point it is not a Left vs right thing as it appears that one thing that sadly the Far right and the Far left can agree on is antisemitism. Jack Fischel, former chair of history at Millersville University of Pennsylvania, writes that new antisemitism is a new phenomenon stemming from a coalition of "leftists, vociferously opposed to the policies of Israel, and right-wing antisemites, committed to the destruction of Israel, [who] were joined by millions of Muslims, including Arabs, who immigrated to Europe... and who brought with them their hatred of Israel in particular and of Jews in general." It is this new political alignment, he argues, that makes new antisemitism unique.[20] Mark Strauss of Foreign Policy links new antisemitism to anti-globalism, describing it as "the medieval image of the "Christ-killing" Jew resurrected on the editorial pages of cosmopolitan European newspapers."[21] Irwin Cotler, Professor of Law at McGill University and a leading scholar of human rights, has identified nine aspects of what he considers to constitute the "new anti-Semitism":[16] Genocidal antisemitism: Calling for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.
Political antisemitism: Denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination, de-legitimization of Israel as a state, attributions to Israel of all the world's evils.
Ideological antisemitism: "Nazifying" Israel by comparing Zionism and racism.
Theological antisemitism: Convergence of Islamic antisemitism and Christian "replacement" theology, drawing on the classical hatred of Jews.
Cultural antisemitism: The emergence of anti-Israel attitudes, sentiments, and discourse in "fashionable" salon intellectuals.[vague]
Economic antisemitism: BDS movements and the extraterritorial application of restrictive covenants against countries trading with Israel.
Holocaust denial
Anti-Jewish racist terrorism
International legal discrimination ("Denial to Israel of equality before the law in the international arena") And some of these new forms of antisemitism have shown up on this forum, from the left as well. With something like racism it is important to attack the racists and not your political opponents. Because if you do you are attacking some non-racists and alienating them, it also protects some within your side. He appears to have conflated Israel and Jewish people with many of those points. I disagree with that position. You can oppose the policies of the Israeli government without being an antisemite, just as you could criticize South African apartheid without being anti-white. Obviously some people can be both a critic of Israel and an antisemite but it is intellectually lazy to combine the two groups.
It's not intellectually lazy, it's deliberate. You don't want to be criticized for your ultranationalist, imperialistic, racist, appartheid like policies? Call antisemitic anyone who does, et voilà. That professor calling economic antisemitic the BDS movement is a clown.
Israel and its hardcore unconditional supporters is preparing the antisemitism of tomorrow. That's the really sad part. They are the biggest threat to the jewish people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
