Know your Enemy: Steve Bannon by Amy Goodman

Page 1 of 14 [ 207 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1017
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

01 Feb 2017, 3:46 pm



Democracy Now's Steve Bannon page:
https://www.democracynow.org/topics/steve_bannon


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,467
Location: America

01 Feb 2017, 4:05 pm

Since there's up to 51 predominantly Muslim countries, how does putting a ban on only 7 of them equate keeping all Muslims out of the United States? What about the other 44?


_________________
Level 2 moderate/severe nonverbal autism.


Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1017
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

01 Feb 2017, 4:27 pm

Yes, let's pretend we didn't hear what candidate Trump said during the campaign.
That will surely lead to someplace useful.
Or, perhaps not.

In any case, the topic is Steve Bannon, America's new NSC Political Officer.

Quote:
But at the end of the day, we do know Neil Gorsuch. We know his record. And, yes, he’s very smart. Yes, he’s very collegial. But that’s not the end of the inquiry when you consider a Supreme Court justice. What you need to look at is the record, as Ian has done and we have done. And it shows an individual who will limit the ability of government to protect Americans’ air, water, medicines, food, weaken workers’ rights, civil rights, limit abortion, do away with abortion. He’s even criticized the courts for advancing LGBTQ rights. So, this is a man who is really out of sync with America at the moment. He’s not out of sync with Heritage Action. He’s not out of sync with the Federalist Society.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1017
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

01 Feb 2017, 4:41 pm

Wait, how is that about Bannon? He didn't personally pick Gorsuch. It sucks to go veering offtopic like that.
The Grosuch quote came from here:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/1/n ... for_scotus

More to the point on Bannon:

Quote:
Sarah, welcome back to Democracy Now! First, comment on Stephen Bannon’s statements to The New York Times that the press is "the opposition party" and "should keep its mouth shut."

SARAH POSNER: Well, this is an effort by the Trump administration to intimidate the media, first. And second, the comments are directed not just at the media, which I would predict is going to be not intimidated by Bannon, but it’s also directed at Bannon’s own audience at Breitbart News and the entire constellation of the alt-right, for which Bannon claimed that Breitbart is the platform. He told me in July that Breitbart is the platform for the alt-right. So, this is an effort to delegitimize the media in the eyes of the Breitbart audience—the Trump base, more broadly—by suggesting that the media has dishonestly covered Donald Trump, when, in fact, the chief complaint that has been lodged against the media by the Trump administration, and amplified on by President Trump last night in that clip that you just played, is based on hard facts about numbers that Donald Trump doesn’t like.

Now, ironically, the alt-right spends much of its time deriding colleges and universities across the United States as havens for weak and hysterical people who need safe spaces and trigger warnings; meanwhile, the president of the United States cannot accept the cold hard facts of how many people were at his inauguration, and sent his press secretary out to complain that the staff has been demoralized by the coverage, which was just based on those facts.

Quote:
Something that really struck me when I interviewed Bannon back in July was that I asked him about what had happened to one of his former employees at Breitbart, a reporter and editor by the name of Ben Shapiro. After Shapiro left Breitbart in the wake of Breitbart not standing by its reporter, Michelle Fields, after she was grabbed at a Trump press conference by then Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, he was subjected to a barrage of anti-Semitic abuse—Shapiro was subjected to a barrage of anti-Semitic abuse on Twitter and other social media, email and so on. One prime example of it was, after he had announced on Twitter the birth of his and his wife’s second child, someone tweeted back at him, "To the ovens with all of you." I asked Bannon about that at the convention, and he cut me off before I could even finish the sentence, and said, "Ben Shapiro is a whiner." So, rather—I was surprised, because I would have thought that most people would have said something more along the lines of "I’m very sorry that that happened to my former employee, and I do not condone that kind of behavior," but instead, he just said that Shapiro was a whiner. So I thought that that was very telling of what Bannon thinks about that kind of harassment and abuse online and how seriously he takes the charges of anti-Semitism.

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/1/27/ ... tion_party


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,730

01 Feb 2017, 5:25 pm

Adamantium wrote:


Democracy Now's Steve Bannon page:
https://www.democracynow.org/topics/steve_bannon


Nice propaganda video, with a side-order of fear-mongering.

Some points:

- Bannon does not appear to be a white supremacist, contrary to the claim made in the video.
- He is a nationalist populist, just like Trump.
- Islamic extremists absolutely do represent their religion, whether or not they exemplify its followers.

Quote:
Something that really struck me when I interviewed Bannon back in July was that I asked him about what had happened to one of his former employees at Breitbart, a reporter and editor by the name of Ben Shapiro. After Shapiro left Breitbart in the wake of Breitbart not standing by its reporter, Michelle Fields, after she was grabbed at a Trump press conference by then Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, he was subjected to a barrage of anti-Semitic abuse—Shapiro was subjected to a barrage of anti-Semitic abuse on Twitter and other social media, email and so on. One prime example of it was, after he had announced on Twitter the birth of his and his wife’s second child, someone tweeted back at him, "To the ovens with all of you." I asked Bannon about that at the convention, and he cut me off before I could even finish the sentence, and said, "Ben Shapiro is a whiner." So, rather—I was surprised, because I would have thought that most people would have said something more along the lines of "I’m very sorry that that happened to my former employee, and I do not condone that kind of behavior," but instead, he just said that Shapiro was a whiner. So I thought that that was very telling of what Bannon thinks about that kind of harassment and abuse online and how seriously he takes the charges of anti-Semitism.


Regarding the section in bold. Notice how they don't attribute any of the abuse to Bannon or to anyone associated with Bannon, yet go on to try and draw a narrative link anyway? This same rhetoric was used repeatedly during the GamerGate debacle. People are wise to it. It doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence, as there's no direct link to the "defendant".

The complaint amounts to "Steve Bannon wasn't very nice to Ben Shapiro, who happens to be a Jew". He gave the guy a job to begin with (along with several other Jewish journalists). Steve Bannon must be the worst anti-semite in history!

Here's an alternative perspective, from one such journalist:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... er-israel/

Joel B. Pollack wrote:
A word or two about my credentials: I am an Orthodox Jew, and I hold a Master of Arts degree in Jewish Studies. My thesis at the Isaac and Jesse Kaplan Centre at the University of Cape Town dealt with the troubled status of Jews in an increasingly anti-Israel, and antisemitic, post-apartheid South Africa. I believe myself to be a qualified judge of what is, and is not, antisemitic.


Quote:
Andrew Breitbart anticipated the kind of attacks that Steve, and anyone else who is effective at opposing the left, would face. In his book Righteous Indignation: Excuse Me While I Save the World, Andrew noted that the “Democrat-media complex” would tarnish any conservative with “made-up closet KKK status.”


So who do we believe? The Jewish friend and confidant who predicted precisely how Bannon would be treated by Democrat-supporting media, or propagandist rhetoric absent evidence of anything - other than his prediction in an interview that Islamic terrorism would increase beyond the West's ability to cope with it, and his subsequent conclusion that America should adopt a hard line against nations linked to said terrorism?

If they come out with something solid against Bannon, or if he makes a giant misstep, I might see things differently, but for now I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,467
Location: America

01 Feb 2017, 9:08 pm

Adamantium wrote:
Yes, let's pretend we didn't hear what candidate Trump said during the campaign.
That will surely lead to someplace useful. Or, perhaps not.


I heard him talking about Sharia law and how its tenets pose a threat. So I'm wondering what Sharia law is in this regard. Here in America there's a separation of church and state. But apparently Muslim countries are governed by religion, which is why they are called Muslim countries and Islamic states etc. We go by the US Constitution and apparently they go by a religious law known as Sharia law. If that's the case, is there anyway possible to separate the countries from their religion? So again I have to wonder what Sharia law is and how it could be considered a threat the United States.

Also I'm wondering if those who are using the word Islamaphobic and holding signs saying we are all Muslims, are familiar with Sharia law which governs Islam? Have you yourself read the tenets of Sharia law?

Adamantium wrote:
Wait, how is that about Bannon? He didn't personally pick Gorsuch. It sucks to go veering offtopic like that.


How is it off topic when the title of the video you posted is: President Bannon?: Racist, Islamophobic... and the conversation in the video is about Bannon crafting the Muslim ban?


_________________
Level 2 moderate/severe nonverbal autism.


Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1017
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

01 Feb 2017, 11:36 pm

EzraS wrote:
I heard him talking about Sharia law and how its tenets pose a threat. So I'm wondering what Sharia law is in this regard. Here in America there's a separation of church and state. But apparently Muslim countries are governed by religion, which is why they are called Muslim countries and Islamic states etc. We go by the US Constitution and apparently they go by a religious law known as Sharia law. If that's the case, is there anyway possible to separate the countries from their religion? So again I have to wonder what Sharia law is and how it could be considered a threat the United States.

OK, so we don't pretend it isn't a muslim ban and get strait to the point: is Islam a threat somehow? Is the ban supposed to be dealing with that threat?

I believe that radical Islam is a threat and a very serious one. Not all Islam, but that fundamentalist faction known as Salafism and in particular that part known as Wahabism. The plain truth is that these ideologies are incompatible with liberal democracy.

There are other forms of Islam that can peacefully coexist with liberal democracy, but these are not those.

Sharia law is not one thing, but varies from region to region within the vary large and varied traditions of juridical interpretation or ijtihad. The many traditional schools of interpretation combine interpretation of verses from the Koran with accounts from the life of Mohamed as told by his companions, the Hadith These are sifted by means of a specialized system of logic in light of the consensus of great scholars living and dead.

Certain parts of Sharia are similar because the original texts are the same, but the individual arbiters of these issues varied greatly in their rulings from place to place and person to person.

Asking "do you know Sharia?" is a bit like asking "do you know the US legal code and the legal Codes of the rest of the G7?"

EzraS wrote:
Also I'm wondering if those who are using the word Islamaphobic and holding signs saying we are all Muslims, are familiar with Sharia law which governs Islam?

Really?
Do you mean you wonder what each of them are thinking or that you think they are all thinking exactly the same thing?
Maybe the "we are all muslims" signs are rhetorical and serve to indicate solidarity? \

Quote:
Have you yourself read the tenets of Sharia law?

I have read some parts of some interpretations of Sharia. It's far too boring to read all of it. I read enough of it.

I don't like it and I don't want it to be respected or observed in my country. It should be ridiculed like other fundamentalist perspectives. Some people have called me Islamophobic for expressing this view, but I just like my own culture and believe it is intrinsically better than theirs.

None of this makes Bannon OK.

EzraS wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
Wait, how is that about Bannon? He didn't personally pick Gorsuch. It sucks to go veering offtopic like that.


How is it off topic when the title of the video you posted is: President Bannon?: Racist, Islamophobic... and the conversation in the video is about Bannon crafting the Muslim ban?

The comment that you have quoted was referring to the Gorsuch quote in the previous post, which is not about Bannon at all.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1017
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

01 Feb 2017, 11:37 pm

adifferentname wrote:
- Bannon does not appear to be a white supremacist, contrary to the claim made in the video.

Wrong.
Transcript here:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/1/p ... art_leader
adifferentname wrote:
- He is a nationalist populist, just like Trump.

And that's exactly what Amy Goodman and Josh Harkinson said:
Quote:
AMY GOODMAN: Can you lay out who Stephen Bannon is? And then we’ll ask you about Stephen Miller.

JOSH HARKINSON: Well, I think, at heart, Stephen Bannon is a nationalist who—you know, he turned Breitbart News into an empire that is really one of the preeminent platforms for the alt-right, as he told us back this last summer. And, you know, he is deeply opposed to Islam, on many levels. But, you know, he is basically a demagogue in the mold of those from past eras. And I, you know, think he’s risen to power within the Trump administration based on his ability to inflame racial fears and xenophobia.

adifferentname wrote:
- Islamic extremists absolutely do represent their religion, whether or not they exemplify its followers.

So? Why buy into their stupid narrative? Because it supports another stupid narrative from white nationalists.
I hate jihadis, just as I hate Nazis. They deserve each other. If we could ship them all to an empty place to fight it out and leave the rest of us alone, the world would be a better place. Maybe they could each have a homeland of people just like them in some suitably isolated place, like an asteroid.


adifferentname wrote:
Notice how they don't attribute any of the abuse to Bannon or to anyone associated with Bannon, yet go on to try and draw a narrative link anyway?

The complaint amounts to "Steve Bannon wasn't very nice to Ben Shapiro, who happens to be a Jew". He gave the guy a job to begin with (along with several other Jewish journalists). Steve Bannon must be the worst anti-semite in history!


This only makes sense if you are trying not to understand what was written. They don't atttribute the abuse to Bannon, they attribute it to some of his readers and fans. Is there any disagreement that this flood of antisemitic stuff came after he left breitbart? None that I have seen. The point isn't that Bannon sent that hatred to the guy, but that some of his readers did and he doesn't give a damn. That is not a claim that he is the worst anti-semite in history, but rather someone who is OK with using the passions of anti-semites to advance his causes.

Quote:
So I thought that that was very telling of what Bannon thinks about that kind of harassment and abuse online and how seriously he takes the charges of anti-Semitism.


You can tell me he's very swell and the sun shines out of his every orifice and I won't be interested. If you have anything that will tell us more about his positions, ideology and actual behavior, I would be very interested.

The ADL has this to say about him:
Quote:
New York, NY, November 13, 2016 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today commended President-Elect Trump for appointing Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff.

Priebus has had a long career in politics and public life, and ADL wishes him well in his new role.

At the same time, ADL strongly opposes the appointment of Steve Bannon as senior advisor and chief strategist in the White House.

"It is a sad day when a man who presided over the premier website of the Alt Right, a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists - is slated to be a senior staff member in the 'people's house,' said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. "We call on President-elect Trump to appoint and nominate Americans committed to the well-being of all our country's people and who exemplify the values of pluralism and tolerance that makes our country great."

http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-r ... JJvKBsrLgk

Quote:
BANNON HAS EMBRACED THE ALT RIGHT, A LOOSE NETWORK OF WHITE NATIONALISTS AND ANTI-SEMITES.

The alt right is a loose network of individuals and groups that promote white identity and reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Often by leveraging social media and the Internet, alt right adherents express opposition to multiculturalism, immigration and often claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to advocate for “white genocide.”

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY ANTI-SEMITIC STATEMENTS FROM BANNON.

While there is a pattern of evidence that Breitbart served as a platform for a wide range of bigotry and there is some controversy related to statements from Mr. Bannon’s divorce proceedings in 2007, we are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements made by Bannon himself. In fact, Jewish employees of Breitbart have challenged the characterization of him and defended him from charges of anti-Semitism. Some have pointed out that Breitbart Jerusalem was launched during his tenure.

Nevertheless, Bannon essentially has established himself as the chief curator for the alt right. Under his stewardship, Breitbart has emerged as the leading source for the extreme views of a vocal minority who peddle bigotry and promote hate.


http://www.adl.org/sp/stephen-bannon-ba ... under.html

Also of interest may be the Mother Jones article on Bannon and the alt right:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... tbart-news


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,467
Location: America

01 Feb 2017, 11:53 pm

Adamantium wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I heard him talking about Sharia law and how its tenets pose a threat. So I'm wondering what Sharia law is in this regard. Here in America there's a separation of church and state. But apparently Muslim countries are governed by religion, which is why they are called Muslim countries and Islamic states etc. We go by the US Constitution and apparently they go by a religious law known as Sharia law. If that's the case, is there anyway possible to separate the countries from their religion? So again I have to wonder what Sharia law is and how it could be considered a threat the United States.

OK, so we don't pretend it isn't a muslim ban and get strait to the point: is Islam a threat somehow? Is the ban supposed to be dealing with that threat?

I believe that radical Islam is a threat and a very serious one. Not all Islam, but that fundamentalist faction known as Salafism and in particular that part known as Wahabism. The plain truth is that these ideologies are incompatible with liberal democracy.

There are other forms of Islam that can peacefully coexist with liberal democracy, but these are not those.

Sharia law is not one thing, but varies from region to region within the vary large and varied traditions of juridical interpretation or ijtihad. The many traditional schools of interpretation combine interpretation of verses from the Koran with accounts from the life of Mohamed as told by his companions, the Hadith These are sifted by means of a specialized system of logic in light of the consensus of great scholars living and dead.

Certain parts of Sharia are similar because the original texts are the same, but the individual arbiters of these issues varied greatly in their rulings from place to place and person to person.

Asking "do you know Sharia?" is a bit like asking "do you know the US legal code and the legal Codes of the rest of the G7?"


Still you know your stuff and that's a good thing. I myself know almost nothing about it at this time.

Adamantium wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Also I'm wondering if those who are using the word Islamaphobic and holding signs saying we are all Muslims, are familiar with Sharia law which governs Islam?

Really?
Do you mean you wonder what each of them are thinking or that you think they are all thinking exactly the same thing?
Maybe the "we are all muslims" signs are rhetorical and serve to indicate solidarity?


I'm wondering if they have practical knowledge of what they are standing behind.

Adamantium wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Have you yourself read the tenets of Sharia law?

I have read some parts of some interpretations of Sharia. It's far too boring to read all of it. I read enough of it.

I don't like it and I don't want it to be respected or observed in my country. It should be ridiculed like other fundamentalist perspectives. Some people have called me Islamophobic for expressing this view, but I just like my own culture and believe it is intrinsically better than theirs.

None of this makes Bannon OK.


Adamantium wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Adamantium wrote:
Wait, how is that about Bannon? He didn't personally pick Gorsuch. It sucks to go veering offtopic like that.


How is it off topic when the title of the video you posted is: President Bannon?: Racist, Islamophobic... and the conversation in the video is about Bannon crafting the Muslim ban?

The comment that you have quoted was referring to the Gorsuch quote in the previous post, which is not about Bannon at all.


Ah.


_________________
Level 2 moderate/severe nonverbal autism.


Adamantium
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1017
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,998
Location: Erehwon

02 Feb 2017, 12:16 am

EzraS wrote:
I'm wondering if they have practical knowledge of what they are standing behind.

They aren't standing behind Sharia, they're standing behind the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; All men are created equal; E Pluribus Unum. Don't tread on me. That sort of thing.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


feral botanist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jul 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 879
Location: in the dry land

02 Feb 2017, 12:19 am

If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?



Aspinator
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 644
Location: AspinatorLand

02 Feb 2017, 12:29 am

As controversial as Donald Trump was during the presential campaign; how could anyone think he wouldn't surround himself with controversial people when he became elected?



EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,467
Location: America

02 Feb 2017, 2:49 am

Adamantium wrote:
EzraS wrote:
I'm wondering if they have practical knowledge of what they are standing behind.

They aren't standing behind Sharia, they're standing behind the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; All men are created equal; E Pluribus Unum. Don't tread on me. That sort of thing.


What about when the political motivations of an aggressive enemy are based solely upon a religion?


_________________
Level 2 moderate/severe nonverbal autism.


EzraS
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,467
Location: America

02 Feb 2017, 2:55 am

feral botanist wrote:
If the ban is meant to protect us, why does it not ban people from the countries where the 9/11 terorists where from?


I keep seeing that here and there, but what does 2001 Al Qaeda have to do with 2017 ISIS?


_________________
Level 2 moderate/severe nonverbal autism.


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,730

02 Feb 2017, 5:07 am

Adamantium wrote:
adifferentname wrote:
- Bannon does not appear to be a white supremacist, contrary to the claim made in the video.

Wrong.
Transcript here:
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/2/1/p ... art_leader


"this man who came out of Goldman Sachs, who was the head of Breitbart News, a news haven for white supremacists and nationalists."

That's a strong implication at the very, very least, a suggestion that he's the Grand Wizard of Breitbart at worst. She immediately asks:

"What is he doing on the National Security Council?"

You can split hairs all you like, but she is clearly arguing that Bannon is a white supremacist.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
- He is a nationalist populist, just like Trump.

And that's exactly what Amy Goodman and Josh Harkinson said:


I was agreeing with them by conceding that (irrelevant) point. There is nothing inherently wrong with nationalist populism.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
- Islamic extremists absolutely do represent their religion, whether or not they exemplify its followers.

So? Why buy into their stupid narrative? Because it supports another stupid narrative from white nationalists.
I hate jihadis, just as I hate Nazis. They deserve each other. If we could ship them all to an empty place to fight it out and leave the rest of us alone, the world would be a better place. Maybe they could each have a homeland of people just like them in some suitably isolated place, like an asteroid.


What stupid narrative? The narrative of fervent religious extremists who can justify any action to themselves through their faith? White nationalists are a very small minority of those concerned with Islamic terrorism, and their concerns are understandable. The spike in Islamic terrorism incidents in Europe since 2015 coincides with Angela Merkel's opening of the floodgates to refugees, and tens of millions of Europeans, including millions of Brits, are justifiably asking if her altruism is worth the cost.

Quote:
adifferentname wrote:
Notice how they don't attribute any of the abuse to Bannon or to anyone associated with Bannon, yet go on to try and draw a narrative link anyway?

The complaint amounts to "Steve Bannon wasn't very nice to Ben Shapiro, who happens to be a Jew". He gave the guy a job to begin with (along with several other Jewish journalists). Steve Bannon must be the worst anti-semite in history!


This only makes sense if you are trying not to understand what was written.


Nonsense. It makes sense when you understand both what was written and the intentional guilt by association.

Quote:
They don't atttribute the abuse to Bannon, they attribute it to some of his readers and fans. Is there any disagreement that this flood of antisemitic stuff came after he left breitbart? None that I have seen.


Shapiro himself attributes the majority of anti-semitic trolling he received directly to Milo Yiannopoulos targeting him on social media. He's spoken several times of how little he receives since Yiannopoulos' Twitter ban, describes is as having "dropped exponentially since [the ban]", a ban which he nevertheless opposes.

He's also on record as stating that "I have no evidence that Bannon is an anti-semite". He does describe him as power-hungry, but that's true of many politicians.

I've followed Ben Shapiro for a long time, and he's always been a lightning rod for hateful trolling, mainly because he's a very effective orator and debater. I have no doubt that he would have received the same amount of targeted abuse were he part of any other demographic, because that's how internet hate-mobs function: they push whatever buttons they think will get a response, go after the low-hanging fruit (in this case Shapiro's Jewishness) and are relentless if they get any sort of reaction.

Quote:
The point isn't that Bannon sent that hatred to the guy, but that some of his readers did and he doesn't give a damn. That is not a claim that he is the worst anti-semite in history, but rather someone who is OK with using the passions of anti-semites to advance his causes.


He doesn't give a damn that people are attacking someone he's fallen out with. How many people voiced their opinion that they were disinclined to care about alleged Nazis being punched in the face on this very board? People are disinclined to show empathy to those they view as political enemies. It doesn't make them morally bankrupt.

I don't subscribe to the idea that publications and media outlets are responsible for the actions of their followers, in much the same way as I agree with Ben Shapiro that Milo Yiannopoulos shouldn't be judged by the behaviour of his Twitter followers. They are responsible for spreading disinformation or presenting false narratives, but the reader/listener/viewer is responsible for whether or not they show discernment.

Quote:
So I thought that that was very telling of what Bannon thinks about that kind of harassment and abuse online and how seriously he takes the charges of anti-Semitism.


This is still inference, not evidence. It's just as valid (more so, considering the expressed attitude of his staff) to infer that he doesn't accept responsibility for the actions of Breitbart readers and so does not feel compelled to dignify any implication that he should.

Quote:
You can tell me he's very swell and the sun shines out of his every orifice and I won't be interested. If you have anything that will tell us more about his positions, ideology and actual behavior, I would be very interested.


Except I'm not, yet here you are trying to convince me he's Satan, without anything resembling actual evidence. Don't confuse scepticism with endorsement or support.

The only thing we can directly attribute to Bannon are his views on Islamic terrorism which, while very strong, are perfectly understandable in the modern climate. Likewise, there are legitimate reasons to disagree with his political positions and policies, but I see no justification for demonising the man.

Quote:
The ADL has this to say about him:


What do politically neutral sources have to say about him?

Quote:
ADL wrote:
New York, NY, November 13, 2016 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today commended President-Elect Trump for appointing Reince Preibus as White House Chief of Staff.

Priebus has had a long career in politics and public life, and ADL wishes him well in his new role.

At the same time, ADL strongly opposes the appointment of Steve Bannon as senior advisor and chief strategist in the White House.

"It is a sad day when a man who presided over the premier website of the Alt Right, a loose-knit group of white nationalists and unabashed anti-Semites and racists - is slated to be a senior staff member in the 'people's house,' said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. "We call on President-elect Trump to appoint and nominate Americans committed to the well-being of all our country's people and who exemplify the values of pluralism and tolerance that makes our country great."

http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-r ... JJvKBsrLgk

Quote:
BANNON HAS EMBRACED THE ALT RIGHT, A LOOSE NETWORK OF WHITE NATIONALISTS AND ANTI-SEMITES.

The alt right is a loose network of individuals and groups that promote white identity and reject mainstream conservatism in favor of politics that embrace implicit or explicit racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy. Often by leveraging social media and the Internet, alt right adherents express opposition to multiculturalism, immigration and often claim that there is a Jewish conspiracy to advocate for “white genocide.”

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF ANY ANTI-SEMITIC STATEMENTS FROM BANNON.

While there is a pattern of evidence that Breitbart served as a platform for a wide range of bigotry and there is some controversy related to statements from Mr. Bannon’s divorce proceedings in 2007, we are not aware of any anti-Semitic statements made by Bannon himself. In fact, Jewish employees of Breitbart have challenged the characterization of him and defended him from charges of anti-Semitism. Some have pointed out that Breitbart Jerusalem was launched during his tenure.

Nevertheless, Bannon essentially has established himself as the chief curator for the alt right. Under his stewardship, Breitbart has emerged as the leading source for the extreme views of a vocal minority who peddle bigotry and promote hate.


Further guilt by association. There's nothing of substance here. You've asked for evidence of his positions, ideology and actual behaviour, but you aren't holding yourself to that standard of evidence with the walls of inference-riddled rhetoric you're posting in support of anti-Bannonism.

Here's what Rabbi Shmuley Boteach had to say in response to the ADL:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/p ... s-jonathan

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote:
I don’t quite know what the alt-right is. I certainly despise white supremacists and racists. As a Jew they contradict the central teaching of the Bible: that every human being, from Jew to Arab to Christian to Muslim to atheist to LGBT to black and white and everything in between — is created in the image of God, equally and with infinite dignity. We are all brothers, we are all sisters.

To the extent that any person or any publication, contradicts these teachings, it deserves to be condemned by the ADL.

But in fairness, Jonathan, Hillary Clinton had many advisers who contradicted these teachings who seem to have escaped censure. Max Blumenthal publishes books calling Israelis Nazis and brave IDF soldiers, like my son Mendy, the SS. Yet, State Department emails showed how Hillary was writing to his father Sid calling Max “a mitzvah.”

I could easily make the argument that not one Breitbart writer ever libeled the Jewish people as much as Max Blumenthal, arguably America’s premier public anti-Semite, a man so vile that he even celebrated the death of Elie Wiesel. I could make the case that his father has been Hillary and Bill Clinton’s closest adviser for a quarter-century.

But none of us would ever argue that this association made Hillary Clinton an anti-Semite. Indeed, she has a Jewish son-in-law, just like Donald Trump. And the Clintons are considered strong friends of Israel and are popular in the Jewish community.

The moral being, guilt by association is not fair.


I'm in agreement with Rabbi Shmuley, and I think it's absolutely right that he speaks out against the ADL abusing its perceived moral authority to discriminately smear those politicians of whom it does not approve.