So she basically said antisemitism is okay because Islamophobia exists. Like, "well, if we can't stop racism, let's at least be racist against everyone." Maybe the worst take in the past 2 months of incredibly bad takes.
This is coming from a white, cisgender person who is neither Jewish nor Muslim, and is worth $60 million ($10 million she made since the start of the pandemic)
Is that what she is saying or is she saying that Muslims in the US normally get a lot of hate and since many people are upset by Israel's actions Jewish people are now getting a taste of that?
Maybe I'm missing some additional context but it doesn't read to me like she's condoning the hate towards any specific group, but simply pointing out that it exists.
Maybe she's full of crap or maybe she's highly educated on the topic, I don't know. I do know that it appears to me that people are putting words into her mouth. Again, maybe I'm missing something in the story?
My interpretation is your interpretation too.
However, getting a taste of their own medicine, as a phrase, normally means it is justified and/or deserved. So, it could be interpreted as being gleeful in Jewish people being targets. I don't think it is. I think she's just pointing out that the use of terrorist actions by Israel affects ordinary Jews with nothing to do with the conflict, just like ordinary muslims have been affected for the last 20+ years.
I think the fact that multiple people are getting cancelled over their support for Palestine is worrying. Especially as it doesn't seem related to a public backlash, but comes from those with power. Maybe heavy handed PR protection. Maybe using influence they have to support Israel.
As I type it, I realize that this is how conspiracy theories about Jewish secret influence starts. That's not what I mean. I hope I keep my agent.
Is that what the phrase normally means? Or is that just the most commonly held opinion by those offended by it?
The basis of the phrase only seems to mean that something is happening to someone who would normally be doing it to others. It offers no justification at all. Except perhaps poetically.
There's also a difference between saying "getting a taste" and "getting a taste of your own...".
One is just saying that you are experiencing what others have experienced, which is what she said.
The other is putting forward an accusation which she is obviously not doing in that statement.
Yes, but they are quite close phrases, so it’s not a huge leap for someone to make, in earnest. I assume an easier leap for concern trolls.
Sounds more like she is justifying the frightening rise in antisemitism because Islamophobia already existed:
"There are a lot of people afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country,"
I don't think that she knows that Jews targeted by antisemitism is nothing new.
Or she's saying both are bad, and sticking your head in the sand for one because you don't like them but getting outraged by the other is hypocritical.
Imagine being as dumb as this comment.
Imagine defending a white person speaking over two minorities and telling them how they should feel about one another.
When you have to take Olympic sized leaps to make your argument sound better you have to know you done fucked up.
When you have to ignore minorities telling you how they're affected by something them you are probably just a-OK and you should keep doing what you're doing and not think about it too hard.
The only minority I'm ignoring is you if you are one because you're a fucking idiot.
No. That's not what she said at all. You've misinterpreted her very clear words.
What did she say? The few quotes I've found so far don't seem to line up with what you are suggesting.
This reeks of a well-funded and orchestrated PR campaign to neuter Israel criticism at all cost. They're really grasping at straws here, and I get the feeling that if the outrage doesn't stick they'll suddenly stop talking about her at all and start stockpiling their money/energy for the next semi-tone deaf comment they can twist into a chest-thumping crusade against "antisemitism".
In this case, it looks more like it's Streisand effecting. (Affecting?)
The way I remember that Affect is active. You affect things. Effect is passive, and is the result of something. Affect is a verb (and I think sometimes can be a descriptor). Effect is always a noun. So you can have the resulting effect of an experiment, but if you mess with some variables, you have affected the effect.
Though, in this case, you're turning the noun into a verb, so you could make the case for either use I think. If you hyphenate it though you can leave it as is without thought. "Streisand-effecting.
Years ago I had a CEO of the company I worked at make a similar comment; "affect/effect. No one really knows which one to use." So my contrarian, anti-authority ass just looked it up right then and decided to always know.
According to what I've read just now, she said that amid the vile attacks against Jews in America "people that are afraid of being Jewish at this time are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country."
This:
a. Minimizes the violence against Jews and Jewish Gathering places right now
b. Makes Jewish suffering secondary to the "real" suffering of Muslims
c. Denies the tragic history of antisemitism in America
d. Pits Jews and Muslims as two parties somehow against each other, when in reality, both groups suffer whenever racism in America goes unchecked
e. Portrays antisemitism as a means to an end - that cold, unfeeling Jews could not possibly understand the suffering of Muslims
Your suggestion that anyone offended by this is paid by some secretive corrupt cabal of globalist to do so...
If doesn't do any of that, and you clearly missed the point she was making. By a lot.
I didn't say you, or anyone is being paid to be offended. Is this your first day learning English? A PR campaign doesn't normally send checks to the people it targets, dumb ass.
Please educate me; who's sending the checks? Who's receiving them?
Do you know how marketing works? THEY'RE NOT SENDING PEOPLE CHECKS.
Do you not know how money works? What do you think well-funded means?
Holy shit dude. You're not smart.
Just say you don't know. It's fine. You said something that you thought sounded cool, but you didn't think about what it meant and then you had to save face by resorting to repeated ad hominem jabs. You'll be much happier in life if you just admit it.
My wife works in marketing, idiot. I know exactly how PR campaigns work. It seems you just don't know how to read, or have never had an actual job. Or both.
You've replied to my comment saying that this is a "well funded PR campaign." Yet you're flailing about and sputtering insults trying to explain how something can be "well-funded" but also no one is getting paid and no one is doing the paying. It doesn't make sense and you know it. So just admit it.
You know what, just put your wife on. At least I can talk to someone capable of making sense.
I'm going to explain this very slowly because it's increasingly clear that you're a complete numbskull:
A firm is hired by someone who wants to sell a product or promote a message. That firm's money comes from who-the-fuck-knows. They pay an agency to develop marketing material that's designed to amplify and intensify a message, all in an effort to sway consumers or interest groups. BP pays to make commercials that make them sound "green". The oil company does the paying, and the marketing firms get paid. Target pays to put out billboards that make them sound friendly and like they have the best deals. The retailer does the paying, and the marketing firms get paid.
A university pays to encourage enrollment. University pays marketing firm or ad agency. Political figures pay ad agencies to put out campaign ads. PACs pay ad agencies to put out emotional pleas to "stop socialist Biden" or "save Democracy". Fox News pays talking heads to sell messages and influence voters. The Koch Brothers fund campy TV shows to sell messages and influence voters. Right-wing activists pay literally tens of millions of dollars to YouTube content creators to sell messages and influence voters. Pro-Israel groups spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars to ad agencies and marketing firms to sell messages and influence voters.
Whoever-the-fuck has something they want to promote, they pay someone to put out material at a cadence that will grab people's attention, elicit strong reactions, and hopefully go "viral" and start being amplified by the rest of the media ecosystem so that John Q. Public hears a coordinated cacophony of self-reinforcing messages. The consumers don't get paid to be outraged or flattered. Consumers don't get paid to do literally anything. No one is paying you. You've literally been talking about Susan fucking Sarandon for days because you're so fucking bent out of shape you can't even sleep at night. And that might very well be because someone paid to put this outrage bait in front of your nose, because they knew you'd cream your fucking pants over it.
Now shut the actual fuck up and go away. I can't fucking believe I had to explain how a goddamned commercial works to a dipshit on the internet today. Gods help us all.
I don't see that in the quotes, what are you referring to?
Here is a response from Muslim American journalist Asra Nomani: (Sorry for the X Link) It includes the quote and Asra's response to it.
For every one Muslim who has a wonderful and positive experience in the USA, I can give you ten who are treated like shit, dehumanized and ridiculed on a daily basis. You cannot paper over Islamophobia with one nice anecdote just like you cannot do the opposite with anti semitism.
That entire Twitter comments reads like some freedumber wrote it.
Yet Sarandon's comment does exactly that with antisemitism. She portrays it as something that may (should?) be measured in relation to Islamophobia, and she characterizes it as "getting a taste." Does that mean antisemitism is less than? It accounts for 60% of US religion-based hate crimes, despite Jews being about 2% of the population. It's been that way for some time.
I don't get it, she can't do that, but you can? Nobody here is saying anti semitism is ok, or doesn't exist, nor is she from an honest read.
Just now hearing about this.
So she basically said antisemitism is okay because Islamophobia exists. Like, "well, if we can't stop racism, let's at least be racist against everyone." Maybe the worst take in the past 2 months of incredibly bad takes.
This is coming from a white, cisgender person who is neither Jewish nor Muslim, and is worth $60 million ($10 million she made since the start of the pandemic)
Is that what she is saying or is she saying that Muslims in the US normally get a lot of hate and since many people are upset by Israel's actions Jewish people are now getting a taste of that?
Maybe I'm missing some additional context but it doesn't read to me like she's condoning the hate towards any specific group, but simply pointing out that it exists.
Maybe she's full of crap or maybe she's highly educated on the topic, I don't know. I do know that it appears to me that people are putting words into her mouth. Again, maybe I'm missing something in the story?
My interpretation is your interpretation too.
However, getting a taste of their own medicine, as a phrase, normally means it is justified and/or deserved. So, it could be interpreted as being gleeful in Jewish people being targets. I don't think it is. I think she's just pointing out that the use of terrorist actions by Israel affects ordinary Jews with nothing to do with the conflict, just like ordinary muslims have been affected for the last 20+ years.
I think the fact that multiple people are getting cancelled over their support for Palestine is worrying. Especially as it doesn't seem related to a public backlash, but comes from those with power. Maybe heavy handed PR protection. Maybe using influence they have to support Israel.
As I type it, I realize that this is how conspiracy theories about Jewish secret influence starts. That's not what I mean. I hope I keep my agent.
Is that what the phrase normally means? Or is that just the most commonly held opinion by those offended by it?
The basis of the phrase only seems to mean that something is happening to someone who would normally be doing it to others. It offers no justification at all. Except perhaps poetically.
There's also a difference between saying "getting a taste" and "getting a taste of your own...".
One is just saying that you are experiencing what others have experienced, which is what she said.
The other is putting forward an accusation which she is obviously not doing in that statement.
Yes, but they are quite close phrases, so it’s not a huge leap for someone to make, in earnest. I assume an easier leap for concern trolls.
Sounds more like she is justifying the frightening rise in antisemitism because Islamophobia already existed:
"There are a lot of people afraid of being Jewish at this time, and are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country,"
I don't think that she knows that Jews targeted by antisemitism is nothing new.
Or she's saying both are bad, and sticking your head in the sand for one because you don't like them but getting outraged by the other is hypocritical.
Imagine being as dumb as this comment.
Imagine defending a white person speaking over two minorities and telling them how they should feel about one another.
When you have to take Olympic sized leaps to make your argument sound better you have to know you done fucked up.
When you have to ignore minorities telling you how they're affected by something them you are probably just a-OK and you should keep doing what you're doing and not think about it too hard.
The only minority I'm ignoring is you if you are one because you're a fucking idiot.
No. That's not what she said at all. You've misinterpreted her very clear words.
What did she say? The few quotes I've found so far don't seem to line up with what you are suggesting.
This reeks of a well-funded and orchestrated PR campaign to neuter Israel criticism at all cost. They're really grasping at straws here, and I get the feeling that if the outrage doesn't stick they'll suddenly stop talking about her at all and start stockpiling their money/energy for the next semi-tone deaf comment they can twist into a chest-thumping crusade against "antisemitism".
In this case, it looks more like it's Streisand effecting. (Affecting?)
The way I remember that Affect is active. You affect things. Effect is passive, and is the result of something. Affect is a verb (and I think sometimes can be a descriptor). Effect is always a noun. So you can have the resulting effect of an experiment, but if you mess with some variables, you have affected the effect.
Though, in this case, you're turning the noun into a verb, so you could make the case for either use I think. If you hyphenate it though you can leave it as is without thought. "Streisand-effecting.
Years ago I had a CEO of the company I worked at make a similar comment; "affect/effect. No one really knows which one to use." So my contrarian, anti-authority ass just looked it up right then and decided to always know.
According to what I've read just now, she said that amid the vile attacks against Jews in America "people that are afraid of being Jewish at this time are getting a taste of what it feels like to be a Muslim in this country."
This: a. Minimizes the violence against Jews and Jewish Gathering places right now b. Makes Jewish suffering secondary to the "real" suffering of Muslims c. Denies the tragic history of antisemitism in America d. Pits Jews and Muslims as two parties somehow against each other, when in reality, both groups suffer whenever racism in America goes unchecked e. Portrays antisemitism as a means to an end - that cold, unfeeling Jews could not possibly understand the suffering of Muslims
Your suggestion that anyone offended by this is paid by some secretive corrupt cabal of globalist to do so...
If doesn't do any of that, and you clearly missed the point she was making. By a lot.
I didn't say you, or anyone is being paid to be offended. Is this your first day learning English? A PR campaign doesn't normally send checks to the people it targets, dumb ass.
Please educate me; who's sending the checks? Who's receiving them?
Do you know how marketing works? THEY'RE NOT SENDING PEOPLE CHECKS.
Do you not know how money works? What do you think well-funded means?
Holy shit dude. You're not smart.
Just say you don't know. It's fine. You said something that you thought sounded cool, but you didn't think about what it meant and then you had to save face by resorting to repeated ad hominem jabs. You'll be much happier in life if you just admit it.
My wife works in marketing, idiot. I know exactly how PR campaigns work. It seems you just don't know how to read, or have never had an actual job. Or both.
You've replied to my comment saying that this is a "well funded PR campaign." Yet you're flailing about and sputtering insults trying to explain how something can be "well-funded" but also no one is getting paid and no one is doing the paying. It doesn't make sense and you know it. So just admit it.
You know what, just put your wife on. At least I can talk to someone capable of making sense.
I'm going to explain this very slowly because it's increasingly clear that you're a complete numbskull:
A firm is hired by someone who wants to sell a product or promote a message. That firm's money comes from who-the-fuck-knows. They pay an agency to develop marketing material that's designed to amplify and intensify a message, all in an effort to sway consumers or interest groups. BP pays to make commercials that make them sound "green". The oil company does the paying, and the marketing firms get paid. Target pays to put out billboards that make them sound friendly and like they have the best deals. The retailer does the paying, and the marketing firms get paid. A university pays to encourage enrollment. University pays marketing firm or ad agency. Political figures pay ad agencies to put out campaign ads. PACs pay ad agencies to put out emotional pleas to "stop socialist Biden" or "save Democracy". Fox News pays talking heads to sell messages and influence voters. The Koch Brothers fund campy TV shows to sell messages and influence voters. Right-wing activists pay literally tens of millions of dollars to YouTube content creators to sell messages and influence voters. Pro-Israel groups spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars to ad agencies and marketing firms to sell messages and influence voters.
Whoever-the-fuck has something they want to promote, they pay someone to put out material at a cadence that will grab people's attention, elicit strong reactions, and hopefully go "viral" and start being amplified by the rest of the media ecosystem so that John Q. Public hears a coordinated cacophony of self-reinforcing messages. The consumers don't get paid to be outraged or flattered. Consumers don't get paid to do literally anything. No one is paying you. You've literally been talking about Susan fucking Sarandon for days because you're so fucking bent out of shape you can't even sleep at night. And that might very well be because someone paid to put this outrage bait in front of your nose, because they knew you'd cream your fucking pants over it.
Now shut the actual fuck up and go away. I can't fucking believe I had to explain how a goddamned commercial works to a dipshit on the internet today. Gods help us all.
Edit: Well look what we have here. I'm not surprised you're weak in the knees about some dumb shit Susan fucking Sarandon said at a rally. You're literally the target audience for this kind of outrage bait.
Newsflash - You are being played like a fiddle.
Apparantly words mean different things for you
I don't see that in the quotes, what are you referring to?
Here is a response from Muslim American journalist Asra Nomani: (Sorry for the X Link) It includes the quote and Asra's response to it.
For every one Muslim who has a wonderful and positive experience in the USA, I can give you ten who are treated like shit, dehumanized and ridiculed on a daily basis. You cannot paper over Islamophobia with one nice anecdote just like you cannot do the opposite with anti semitism.
That entire Twitter comments reads like some freedumber wrote it.
Yet Sarandon's comment does exactly that with antisemitism. She portrays it as something that may (should?) be measured in relation to Islamophobia, and she characterizes it as "getting a taste." Does that mean antisemitism is less than? It accounts for 60% of US religion-based hate crimes, despite Jews being about 2% of the population. It's been that way for some time.
I don't get it, she can't do that, but you can? Nobody here is saying anti semitism is ok, or doesn't exist, nor is she from an honest read.
EXACTLY!