Ain't nobody laughing now..

Nomenclature

@jack

she said California wild fires were caused by Jewish space lasers

No she didn't. You're an offensively dumb imbecile who believes everything he reads just so long as it can be twisted into an accusation of anti-Semitism.

The "Jewish space lasers" quote was someone else's interpretation of what she'd written in a FB post. 

You should be aware that while you're busy laughing at stuff other people are busy laughing at you. 

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: She Did

Yes, Marjorie Taylor Greene did claim that there were Jewish space lasers. In a 2018 Facebook post, she said that a California wildfire was started by a "space laser" owned by the Rothschilds, a wealthy Jewish banking family. She later deleted the post, but it was captured by screenshots and widely shared.

Greene's claim was based on a debunked conspiracy theory that has been circulating online for years. The theory alleges that the Rothschilds are using space lasers to start wildfires and other natural disasters in order to control the world. There is no evidence to support this claim, and it has been widely condemned by Jewish organizations and others.

Greene's claim is an example of antisemitism, which is prejudice against or hatred of Jews. Antisemitism has a long and ugly history, and it is still a serious problem today. It is important to call out antisemitism when we see it, and to stand up for the rights of all people, regardless of their religion or ethnicity.

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: No she didn't, you hideously illiterate clown

@JulesKorngold

Yes, Marjorie Taylor Greene did claim that there were Jewish space lasers. In a 2018 Facebook post, she said that a California wildfire was started by a "space laser" owned by the Rothschilds.

STOP TELLING LIES. She didn't claim there were "Jewish space lasers". She made a specific claim about the Rothschilds, which you (and others) have arbitrarily expanded into "Jewish" simply because the Rothschilds are Jewish. That's like calling Hillary Clinton an imbecile and the newspaper running the headline, "Nomenclature claims women are imbeciles". 

Your dishonesty makes me sick, and the same goes for that useless conman above you, Jack, who agrees with anything you write just so long as you don't draw attention to his lies about being Jewish.

jack

Nomenclature said:

Your dishonesty makes me sick, and the same goes for that useless conman above you, Jack, who agrees with anything you write just so long as you don't draw attention to his lies about being Jewish.

Hello Hater:

You are aptly named..  Hatred oozes out of every pore in your body.  You are consumed by it.

Truly, we've been hated by better haters than you..  We've outlived 'em all, and we'll outlive you.

excon, Jew

Nomenclature

@jack

Please allow me to correct this misunderstanding by clarifying that I couldn't give a fart in a storm what you think. You're an obnoxious, unintelligent, dishonest toad who pretends to be Jewish for social benefits. Go jump off a cliff.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Dog Whistle

Attacking the Rothschilds is often used as a way to attack all Jews. This is because the Rothschilds are often seen as symbols of Jewish power and influence. However, this is a harmful stereotype. Jews are not a monolithic group, and they do not have any one agenda.

Attacking the Rothschilds is often considered antisemitic as they are a prominent Jewish family with a long history of being targeted by antisemitic conspiracy theories.

These attacks often utilize negative stereotypes about Jews and seek to blame them for global issues like space lasers.

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

"Attacking the Rothschilds is often used as a way to attack all Jews. This is because the Rothschilds are often seen as symbols of Jewish power and influence. However, this is a harmful stereotype."

This doesnt mean everyone talking about the Rothschilds are doing so in this manner.  Basically what your saying is, if you attack the Rothschilds you attack the Jews.  Seems like an easy way to escape critique by the Rothschilds...but i dont want to seem antisemitic.

While i usually disagree with nomenclature, he is correct with his comparison to an hilary clinton is an attack on all women or all women presidents.

Nomenclature

@MichaelElpers

Basically what your saying is, if you attack the Rothschilds you attack the Jews.  Seems like an easy way to escape critique by the Rothschilds.

It's the most dishonest argument I've ever heard. If you say mean things about someone who is a Jew, then you must be saying mean things about them because they are a Jew. I don't see any possible way a person with any intellectual integrity wouldn't immediately understand that's a fallacy.

ZeusAres42

@jack

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Request For Clarification

@MichaelElpers
Could you explain your perspective more?  Do you believe antisemites always attack clearly and directly?  That they never use code words or dog whistles?

(A dog whistle is a political term used to describe a coded message that is designed to be understood by a particular group of people (like antisemites), but that is not apparent to the general population. Dog whistles are often used to appeal to prejudice, antisemitism, or bigotry, and they can be very effective in mobilizing groups.)

Do you reject "Rothschild" or "Soros" as antisemitic code words/dog whistles for "Jew"?

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

Do you believe antisemites always attack clearly and directly?

Jules, you're hated because you're a nasty, spiteful, dishonest piece of work, not because you're Jewish.

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

First off if a dog whistle is only code not understood by the general populace than its not going to do much good in mobilizing any sort of sentiment.  According to your definition of the term those not espousing the views wouldnt understand it anyways.

Second of all even if they are used, that doesnt mean you can universally apply antisemitism to all critiques of a jewish individual.  Just like its not racism to critique a black individual or sexist to critique a woman ect.  Context matters. 
So when there is no context to a comment specifically attacking jewish religion or heritage, I will assume no antisemtism.  To assume ill intent is no way to live and is actually quite vile.

I think Soros is a piece of crap, but has nothing to do with him bring Jewish. I shouldnt need to clarify that.

 Kanye west on the other hand did lump all jews together because of disagreements with certain jewish individuals in power.  His remarks contained antisemitism.

bjinthirty

So what if she did. Nowadays especially for a woman, it is difficult to navigate through all the chains of commands that can stop you dead on your tracks. I cant think of more than a couple of few other ways to achieve these obstacles without any help from anybody. To get yourself to the top by yourself sometimes requires grab peoples attention and it seemed to work. The trolls like you fell for the bait and advertise her name for free. Sure it is a bad reputation thing but do you know her personally?. Have you personally observed and seen her work ethics?. Maybe she got nominated because those around her know who she is. But at the same time if she wrote that ha ds down out of her personal raw opinion, then yeah she is trouble. But for now I dont know her so i am going to assume it was a strategy to promote herself to the top.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: I Still Disagree

@MichaelElpers

I understand your point of view, but I disagree with your conclusion. I believe that dog whistles can be effective in mobilizing sentiment, even if they are not understood by the general populace. This is because dog whistles are often used in conjunction with other forms of propaganda, such as name-calling and fear-mongering. These techniques can create an atmosphere of hatred and resentment, which can make people more receptive to dog whistles.

I also believe that it is important to consider the context of a comment before assuming that it is not antisemitic. In the case of George Soros and the Rothschilds, there is a long history of antisemitism associated with his name. This history includes conspiracy theories about them being puppet masters who control the world's financial markets. These theories are often used to justify anti-Jewish violence and discrimination.

Therefore, when someone criticizes Soros or the Rothschilds, I believe it is important to consider whether their criticism is motivated by antisemitism. If it is, then I believe it is important to call out that antisemitism. This is not about assuming ill intent; it is about standing up against hatred and bigotry.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

I also believe that it is important to consider the context of a comment before assuming that it is not antisemitic.

As @MichaelElpers has pointed out already, you have it upside down. If you believe a comment is anti-Semitic then the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on the commenter to prove he is not anti-Semitic. Slimeballs like you use false (or at least completely unevidenced) accusations of anti-Semitism as a form of emotional blackmail, and you demand the person you accuse go on the defensive and prove their innocence. 

Making accusations against the Rothschilds has got absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. The former is a criticism of a specific individual and/or family and the latter is a negative generalisation of a group.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: More Personal Insults From "Nomenclature"

I'm here to have a respectful debate about the issues, not to engage in personal attacks. If he's not interested in having a productive debate, then I think it's best if he is ignored.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

I'm here to have a respectful debate about the issues

Don't make me laugh. You taunt and insult me relentlessly, then try to play the victim when I do the same in return. You have no integrity, you believe you should be governed by different rules than others, and you're just generally a despicable human being.

anarchist100

@JulesKorngold
What about her statement leads you to believe that it's an anti sematic dog whistle rather than just a genuine criticism of these people? What details are in the context that lead you to this particular conclusion?

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Prison

@anarchist100

Greene is not the first person to make claims about Jewish space lasers. In 2002, a man named Norman Finkelstein claimed that the Rothschilds were using a space laser to control the weather. Finkelstein was later convicted of fraud and sentenced to five years in prison.  Greene should be in prison too.

The claims about Jewish space lasers are baseless and have been repeatedly debunked by scientists and experts. There is no evidence that the Rothschilds or any other Jewish group is using a space laser to start wildfires or control the weather.

anarchist100

JulesKorngold said:

@anarchist100

Greene is not the first person to make claims about Jewish space lasers. In 2002, a man named Norman Finkelstein claimed that the Rothschilds were using a space laser to control the weather. Finkelstein was later convicted of fraud and sentenced to five years in prison.  Greene should be in prison too.

The claims about Jewish space lasers are baseless and have been repeatedly debunked by scientists and experts. There is no evidence that the Rothschilds or any other Jewish group is using a space laser to start wildfires or control the weather.

Well for one thing it's seriously immoral to put people in prison for stating a certain opinion, I'm assuming that that is what you think she should be in prison for. But regardless of that I should stick to the topic at hand:

You didn't really prove anything in response to my post, yeah some other guy commented on the space laser thing, but you didn't even bother to prove that he is anti-sematic and using it as a dog whistle.

The Rothchild's are actual people, not a fictional symbol of Judaism, while you can theorize all you want about how they are viewed by some people, and how they came to prominence in discussions of conspiracy, you can't prove that it's what they meant to any particular individual. The Rothchild's are powerful people widely discussed among those interested in conspiracy, if you want to talk about how they only came to prominence in that regard through anti-Sematism then that's a whole other debate topic. But unless you have some more evidence you can't really call Marjory Taylor Greene anti-sematic, because of the motivations of other people. As far as you know she could be as against anti-sematism as you are, but simply, (according to your view of the facts) being misled to the point of being a tool of anti-sematism.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: MTG is a Raging Antisemite

@anarchist100

There is a significant amount of evidence that Marjorie Taylor Greene is an antisemite. This evidence includes her own words and actions, as well as the testimony of others.

Greene has repeatedly made antisemitic comments, both on social media and in public appearances.

1.  She has said that the Rothschilds, a wealthy Jewish banking family, are using a space laser to start wildfires in California.

2.  She has promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory, which claims that a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles, including many Jews, is running the world.

3.  Greene has also associated with known antisemites. For example, she has met with and endorsed Nick Fuentes, a white nationalist who has called for the deportation of all Jews from the United States.

Greene's antisemitic comments and associations have been condemned by Jewish organizations and leaders. The Anti-Defamation League has called her "a rising star of the antisemitic right."

Greene has denied that she is an antisemite, but her words and actions speak for themselves. She is a danger to the Jewish community and to our democracy.

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold

There is a significant amount of evidence that Marjorie Taylor Greene is an antisemite

No there isn't. Just your delusions.

You are living in a fantasy universe buddy.

Barnardot

@Nomenclature @jack @JulesKorngold @anarchist100 @MichaelElpers Well the fact is that that conspiritator bich said nothing of the sort so end of argument. Shes a politician and she implied such a dum thing because thats what politicians do because there got to get the noses clean to get elected but she didn't actually say it because thats what these people do. They stir things up with out actually saying any thing so that if she gets challenged on that then she can just as easily say that she didn't say that and that your drawing a long bow just to blow it back to you like a gilt trip thing and it doesnt get to bite her on the bottom. But the thing is that I bet you wouldn't mind biting her on the bottom any way because shes not to bad to the eye but your got to put some gaffer tape on her mouth first. Well when I think about it may be you would put the gaffer tape on second.

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

"This is because dog whistles are often used in conjunction with other forms of propaganda, such as name-calling and fear-mongering."

That would suggest the propaganda and fear mongering are what is effective.  Dog whistling according to your definition only riles up members that are already part of the group.

"I also believe that it is important to consider the context of a comment before assuming that it is not antisemitic. In the case of George Soros and the Rothschilds, there is a long history of antisemitism associated with his name".

You cannot consider an antisemetic comment of other individuals and use that as context for someone else.
I dont care if 99% of critiques of george soros are anti-semetic, it is still wrong to associate that with a comment that doesnt contain antisemitism.

My criteria.  Does the comment itself criticize or suggest inferiority/attack on someone based on their jewish heritage.  If not, it is not antisemetic.

If other groups use a non-antisemetic critique of a jewish individual like soros to make antisemetic statements, you call the group out not the original post.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: The Verdict

@MichaelElpers
I usually give people the benefit of the doubt.  In Marjorie Taylor Greene's case, she doesn't deserve it.  Her statement about the Rothschilds must be taken within the context of her association with QAnon and endorsement of Nick Fuentes - a virulent antisemite.

The verdict:  She's an antisemite and her statement was antisemitic.

OakTownA

Why are we focusing on whether or not she is antisemitic, and instead focusing on that there is a member of Congress that thinks that there are lasers in space that can cause wildfires. I hope we can all agree that there is no such thing. Personally, I find it frightening that someone who is this susceptible to conspiracy theories is a member of Congress. 

MichaelElpers

@JulesKorngold

So your not giving the benefit of the doubt.  Even if you believe she was antisemetic before she made the statement that doesnt make her specific statement antisemetic.

I mean if Soros murdered someone, and she states Soros actions were wrong would you say that is antisemetic?  Statements stand alone.

Additionally an association with someone doesnt mean you agree with all of their views.  Someone may have a lot of good points, but a couple wacky perspectives (i dont follow qanon or nick fuentes so no comment there).

Honestly i think victimhood perspectives and claiming racism or antisemitism when none exists only emboldens these people.

jack

anarchist100 said:

What about her statement leads you to believe that it's an anti sematic dog whistle rather than just a genuine criticism of these people? What details are in the context that lead you to this particular conclusion?

Hello a:

It's hard to point it out, but here's an example..  On Jan 6, SOME people heard Trump say march to the Capital in peace..  Others heard, storm the place.

excon

Nomenclature

@OakTownA

Why are we focusing on whether or not she is antisemitic

Because people like @JulesKorngold and @Jack have paved a career out of pretending to be victims. They use concepts like racism and anti-Semitism as weapons.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: Fact

"Nomenclature" posted vulgar antisemitic cartoons deleted by aarong. 

What an incredible debater.  

Nomenclature

@JulesKorngold