Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 11:58 am wrote:compared2what? » Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:05 pm wrote:Searcher08 » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:40 am wrote:
My suggestion is to regard me as a 'frenemy' a friend and enemy, who you work with fully on the other thread and create perhaps one of the first pathways for an entire set of people to take their first steps in activism, while regarding me also as a deeply unpleasent racist fascist neo-Nazi
scumbucket at worst and an idiotic dissembling trolling wisdomless fuckwit at best :mrgreen:
Same for you, Searcher. WRT the hoping it will help.
And wrt the "You can understand how that might be read as an unjust accusation by someone who hadn't called you a deeply unpleasant racist fascist neo-Nazi scumbucket at worst and an idiotic dissembling trolling wisdomless fuckwit at best, right?"
And wrt the "Speak up if it's not sufficiently helpful, please." Because you shouldn't have to feel that way.
AD did argue that SLAD, SLiM myself and CW were racist Holocaust denying Neo Nazi sympathisers
1 Slim, SLAD, S08 are defenders of Icke
2 Icke + pals = racist Holocaust denying Neo Nazi sympathisers
3 those who defend Icke = pals
therefore inferring SLAD, slim, S08 are racist Holocaust denying Neo Nazi sympathisers
This is what I was saying about it being contextual - when asked are we, as evidenced by CW, he ignored, avoided the question. equivocated.
I don't see that context. What I see are repeated clarifications that specifically and categorically state that he is not accusing the poster in question of hatred or prejudice (such as the two bolded here)...
Not saying you want to propagate racism but unfortunately you do endorse it, no matter how good your intentions...
...but that he is categorically saying that the material they're endorsing propagates racism.
I'd say that there's indisputably a threshold legitimate case to be made that Icke's work propagates anti-Semitism. (Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc.) I myself wouldn't make it in those terms. But that's not the point. I'd say such a case exists. If you think that's more disputable than I do, let me know.
But assuming that you don't:
If you put saying that the material propagates anti-Semitism out of bounds on the grounds that it makes people who disagree feel like they're being called anti-Semites, how are the people who find the case that it does both legitimate and persuasive supposed to express their views?
And how are they supposed to say to those who feel accused of anti-Semitism that they're not being, if:
(a) saying: "I'm not saying that's what you want or intend, but that's what endorsing the material does" isn't it?; and
(b) those who feel accused don't explain why it isn't?
And I'm asking that on my own behalf. Because, on the face of it, I'd say that's a plain, literal avowal that no personal accusation is being made. So if it isn't, I want and need an explanation of why not that I can understand.
I mean, it looks to me like he's repeatedly explicitly stated that he was not imputing hateful sentiments or motives to the people who were asking him about it. Seriously. I don't want to be blind or insensitive to it if that's not the case. But I need an assist.