Random Politics 2

[linguoboy]

So, turns out Mueller was senile

Based on what evidence are you making that claim?

[Yasna]

Based on what evidence are you making that claim?

A comparison of his testimony yesterday compared with his testimonies from his time as FBI director.

[linguoboy]

Based on what evidence are you making that claim?

A comparison of his testimony yesterday compared with his testimonies from his time as FBI director.

I haven't gone through his testimony line-by-line, but the summaries I saw just mentioned him misspeaking once and correcting it afterwards. What else did you find looking at the transcripts?

[Yasna]

I haven't gone through his testimony line-by-line, but the summaries I saw just mentioned him misspeaking once and correcting it afterwards. What else did you find looking at the transcripts?

Here's the NYT putting it more diplomatically than I did. The video embedded in the article is revealing.

Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina

[linguoboy]

Here's the NYT putting it more diplomatically than I did.

Perhaps because there are actual consequences for them when they misstate the facts?

[Yasna]

Perhaps because there are actual consequences for them when they misstate the facts?

I'm not criticizing the article's careful language.

[Osias]

What

[Yasna]

Etwas zerbricht

"Die Grausamkeit der heimtückischen Tat vom Frankfurter Hauptbahnhof ist monströs. Der Täter hat ein Kind in den Tod gestoßen. Seine Mutter konnte ihr Leben retten, aber nicht das des Sohnes. Es gab etliche Augenzeugen, die das Geschehen verfolgt haben und anschließend zusammengebrochen sind."

"Auffällig ist, dass sich derzeit gerade in Hessen Gewalttaten häufen, die eine neue Qualität haben. Da ist die Ermordung des Kasseler Regierungspräsidenten Walter Lübcke durch einen Rechtsextremen, die Züge einer Hinrichtung trug. Sodann die Schüsse auf einen jungen Eritreer auf offener Straße in Wächtersbach und der anschließende Suizid des Schützen, der sein Opfer aus fremdenfeindlichen Motiven ausgesucht hatte. Und jetzt der Todesstoß von Frankfurt, der in dem Fall im niederrheinischen Voerde einen unheimlichen Vorläufer hat."

"So unterschiedlich diese Fälle liegen, sie haben Gemeinsamkeiten: Sie berühren das Verhältnis von Deutschen und Migranten. Zudem kannten sich Täter und Opfer nicht. Beides trägt dazu bei, die gesellschaftliche Atmosphäre zu vergiften. Viele Bahnreisende, nicht nur in Frankfurt, werden die Einfahrt von Zügen künftig möglichst von der Mitte des Bahnsteigs aus abwarten; einige von ihnen werden Männer mit dunkler Hautfarbe in ihrer Nähe ängstlich beäugen. Viele Migranten wiederum sind nun mit der Angst unterwegs, dass sie ein Ausländerhasser tödlich attackieren könnte."

[vijayjohn]

Does anybody know why Ilhan Omar is considered antisemitic? Is it because she once tweeted something about Israel hypnotizing the world? She apologized later for that comment. Does that make her still antisemitic?

[linguoboy]

Does anybody know why Ilhan Omar is considered antisemitic? Is it because she once tweeted something about Israel hypnotizing the world? She apologized later for that comment. Does that make her still antisemitic?

Did you miss the furore this February when she criticised the influence of the Israel lobby in American politics? First she tweeted "It's all about the Benjamins baby". Then, a few weeks later, she said at an in-person appearance "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country." These remarks were interpreted as tapping into long-standing anti-Semitic tropes about the influence of Jewish money and the divided loyalties of Jews in the Diaspora.

In both cases, she apologised the next day following widespread condemnation (including from her own party). But you can see how this contributes to a larger pattern of her being--to say the least--incautious when attempting to criticise Israel.

[vijayjohn]

Does anybody know why Ilhan Omar is considered antisemitic? Is it because she once tweeted something about Israel hypnotizing the world? She apologized later for that comment. Does that make her still antisemitic?

Did you miss the furore this February when she criticised the influence of the Israel lobby in American politics?

No (EDIT: well, I missed it in February itself, but I have read this before), but that's a case where it's even harder for me to see what's so antisemitic about her.

[Yasna]

It's heartening to see that the major newspapers in this country have had no trouble clearly identifying and focusing on the ideology behind the El Paso shooting and other similarly motivated attacks. After their timid coverage of Islamist terrorism, I feared we might be treated to a wave of pieces playing down white nationalism and instead putting the focus on some history of adversity faced by the shooter and/or people that look like him.

[vijayjohn]

White people are more likely to understand other white people than they are to understand Muslims, especially given that an awful lot of white Americans have never even met any Muslims.

[Saim]

To me the idea that the American media are giving “timid” coverage of the major justification of their colonial politics is pretty absurd, but maybe thats because I’m not American.

[linguoboy]

To me the idea that the American media are giving “timid” coverage of the major justification of their colonial politics is pretty absurd, but maybe thats because I’m not American.

I’m American and I don’t consider that statement absurd mainly because I don’t even understand what it’s supposed to mean. The whole point of investigative journalism is to explain why something happened. How do you comprehend someone’s motives without examining the circumstances that gave rise to them?

Moreover, I’ve already seen those pieces downplaying white nationalism through sympathetic portraits of its perpetrators. It’s part of the reason why I unsubscribed to the NYT.

[Yasna]

To me the idea that the American media are giving “timid” coverage of the major justification of their colonial politics is pretty absurd, but maybe thats because I’m not American.

What I mean is that the link between (Sunni) Islam and Islamist terrorism has been consistently downplayed, in an (understandable) effort by both media and government to avoid the perception of a religious war. We have been fed a narrative that includes causes ranging from the probable (political grievances) to the misleading (it's all socioeconomics) to the implausible (they hate our freedoms).

The whole point of investigative journalism is to explain why something happened. How do you comprehend someone’s motives without examining the circumstances that gave rise to them?

Investigative journalism is great as long as it's done honestly and without shying away from uncomfortable facts. Otherwise you get a slanted picture, which is what happened in the case of Islamist terrorism. The major newspapers basically took the cue from Obama who famously wouldn't even use the phrase "Islamic extremism". And this led to a slanted analysis and understanding.

Obama:
"'These are people who've killed children, killed Muslims, take sex slaves, there's no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things that they do,' he said."

Except anyone who has read the foundational books of the Abrahamic religions knows that you can find rationales to justify all kinds of barbarism, unfortunately.

[Saim]

I didn’t realise Barack Obama was a major newspaper. I guess “division of powers” over there is even more of a joke than I originally thought.

I also “won’t” say “Islamic extremism”, because I think it’s an ambiguous term when there are much more precise ones. In any case “Islamic extremism” isn’t a magic term that will make war go away. What might decrease violence in the world would be to stop massively inflicting it, so my criticism of US presidents is going to have more to do with policy than superficial elements of discourse.

“They hate our freedoms” is code for “they’re culturally/religiously different”. Of course it’s absurd, but what racism isn’t? It’s not just “implausible”, it was a very deliberate xenophobic narrative.

[Yasna]

I didn’t realise Barack Obama was a major newspaper.

I also “won’t” say “Islamic extremism”, because I think it’s an ambiguous term when there are much more precise ones. In any case “Islamic extremism” isn’t a magic term that will make war go away.

Obama refused to use any wording that would indicate that religion had something to do with the problem. The major US newspapers followed his lead for the most part.

And the larger point is that if you can't even name a problem, it does not portend well for you ever solving that problem. Instead of actually taking substantial steps to solve the religious extremism problem (like withdrawing support from allied countries that cultivate Wahhabism), the US instead built a massive surveillance state and meddled even more in Islamic countries.

What might decrease violence in the world would be to stop massively inflicting it, so my criticism of US presidents is going to have more to do with policy than superficial elements of discourse.

That's nice.

“They hate our freedoms” is code for “they’re culturally/religiously different”.

That's partially what the phrase encodes. But no one would think of using that line to describe East Asians (who are every bit as culturally/religiously different).

It’s not just “implausible”, it was a very deliberate xenophobic narrative.

Yes.

[Saim]

Yes, the ideological aspect of the problem has a name, and you just mentioned it — Wahhabism . “Islamic extremism”, on the other hand, is ambiguous, because it can just as well be employed in the Americans’ hysterical screeching on Iran, Hamas (or even Palestinians in general) or Hezbollah. Based on your posts so far I think you’d agree that that has very little to do with Wahhabism.

As for “withdrawing support from countries that cultivate Wahhabism”, I see no reason to believe the term “Islamic extremism” has any magical properties that would make heads of state who utter it automatically cut ties with Saudi Arabia or Qatar. In fact, Trump has been pretty resoundingly pro-Saudi, all while being a massive Islamophobe domestically (and he has said “Islamic extremism”). So I just don’t see the connection in terms of things that have actually happened.

Regarding East Asians, I’m sure if the US military was in the business of starving Japanese children (rather than Yemeni children as is the case now), we’d be hearing all sorts of things about how Shinto, Buddhism and other aspects of Japanese culture are inferior or violent. That’s what you come to understand when you have a materialistic (which is distinct from economically reductionist) rather than idealistic view of history.

[linguoboy]

The whole point of investigative journalism is to explain why something happened. How do you comprehend someone’s motives without examining the circumstances that gave rise to them?

Investigative journalism is great as long as it's done honestly and without shying away from uncomfortable facts. Otherwise you get a slanted picture, which is what happened in the case of Islamist terrorism. The major newspapers basically took the cue from Obama who famously wouldn't even use the phrase "Islamic extremism". And this led to a slanted analysis and understanding.

[citation needed]

I'm not really sure how "withdrawing support from allied countries that cultivate Wahhabism" would have helped. That's basically Saudi and we're not withdrawing support from them while they are one of the only countries that has the oil we need still on speaking terms with us. (Maybe if our slow-motion coup in Venezuela succeeds and we can pump them dry instead, that will change, but I wouldn't hold your breath on that.)