Comments by "A.J. Hart" (@cobbler88) on "What do refugees bring to Britain? Douglas Murray vs Enver Solomon | SpectatorTV" video.
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
@revol148 Let's address the drivel here:
a) Not a self-important title at all. It's just a more brief description for someone who has spent his career in the communications business. I imagine that if an MLB player describes himself as a "sports professional" that you believe him to be putting on airs? And I didn't take issue with "most often." I took issue with "often linked," then went into detail as to why, and you didn't challenge any of it in your reply. Leave identifying irony to the smart people.
b) Since none of this seems to really have anything to do with what I wrote, it doesn't seem necessary to reply beyond the fact that none of it assails anything I wrote other than the part where I didn't throw in any accusations of anti-Semitism. I'm starting to believe I was wrong in that assessment at this point. It's odd. Have you ever noticed how anti-Semites on comment boards seem to nip at any red meat tossed in their direction?
c) and d): I didn't inject US politics. I merely pointed out an example of the sort of monolithic groups that do exist, contrary to the Jewish monolith you seem to believe exists, but does not. This is not injecting politics any more than using an example that includes animals is introducing zoology into the discussion. How do we know who people vote for? No way is perfect, but polls support a different narrative than you seem to embrace. I know it's convenient for you to believe that when they don't support your argument that it's because people tend to lie on polls, but there are many kinds of polls that are conducted in different ways. And, to be honest, if we were to apply that point of view, THEN we would believe in a monolithic Jewish vote because the 30 percent who do not side with the Dems would be the ones pressured to lie about which side they cozy up to. But this is not the case. It would probably be better known if it made a difference. The overwhelming majority of Jews in the US live in areas so blue that it would change almost nothing if all of them suddenly voted red. Regardless, I never wrote that any single religion votes overwhelmingly for one party/person. I'm not sure what the rest of that blather was, but hopefully you feel better now.
e) That's nice. I don't see where I wrote about generalities, but I appreciate you sharing your opinion, I guess.
You really seem to have not actually understood the arguments being put forward. At the worst, your reading comprehension skills are highly questionable. At best, you understood some things enough to know you couldn't possibly win the point, so you shifted a few of them into areas that were not on the table just so you'd have something to say - then you were fairly ridiculous in your rants in THOSE areas as well.
Maybe the next time the big people are talking, you would do well to just sit quietly at the folding table in the corner with the rest of the children?
Take care
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
@revol148 I apologize if I seized on something erroneously after the deletion of a comment or two. I sometimes find I can't even find the links to people who reply to my posts and find it frustrating.
"Often linked" doesn't actually say anything. That's why I have an issue with it. But I will point out that I've been a communications professional for decades, and I tend to see the red flags when it comes to rhetoric a little easier than most people.
Think of it. We first have to pretend that the Jewish people are a monolithic group, like how blacks in the US tend to vote 90% Democrat. But they're not. There are all stripes of Jews even beyond the most high profile split between secular and religious Jews.
Then we say "often." How often is "often"? We can say that often college football players often get arrested for rape and have a solid argument to back it up, but it's likely less than half of one percent ever actually do. But half of one percent doesn't sound like "often." Basically, it's a subjective term - more so than some others - and as such, again, it doesn't convey anything tangible.
As for "linked," again, what does that actually mean? We can claim "links" in a lot of ways. If 5% of KKK members used to be in the Boy Scouts, I can claim a link. We can explore links between freemasonry and the founding of the country in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but is it freemasonry, or the fact that such a large percentage of influential people of the time happened to be freemasons? Or maybe they became prominent using that network, but did that network have anything to do with the founding choices they made? Still, we have a link. We're just not sure of what.
It all just really requires elaboration before it's of much use, rhetorically.
Of course, when it comes to anti-Semites (not accusing you, btw), they'll claim all manner of links between Israel and various dark forces, while claiming the Palestinians have no outside ties whatsoever and that ever act of violence they've ever participated in is simply a reaction to oppression. And folks seem pretty comfortable with that nothing-to-see-here explanation. 🤣 So then we also have to deal with the prism through which a claim is made.
As for me, I'm going to find some puppy videos now.
Take care.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1