all 96 comments

[–]magnora7 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The comments did end up getting to the truth, did they not? That's how social media systems usually work. You cannot honestly expect main posts to be factually correct all the time. Hell, just the fact we're talking about actual legislation at all, rather than just stupid memes with zero citations, is a big step forward imo. That's already a huge improvement over voat and reddit.

That said I do appreciate your striving for factual accuracy, because that is very important too, without a doubt. But don't let perfect be the enemy of good, so to speak.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The comments did end up getting to the truth, did they not?

Yes, fortunately. But it took far too long! Perhaps you're right, though; that might be enough.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

This PSA is a distraction.

The fact that this nonsense PSA was posted serves to validate the original post.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A distraction from what?

[–]d3rr 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

saying that the US government is doing things that it's not in order to get us all riled up is a lie

Imo tracking anti-Semitism across Europe from now to forever is a waste of my tax dollars and not part of the Feds responsibilities. It is more free work and $ for Israel.

The definition given will be used when doing this reporting/stats work.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Imo tracking anti-Semitism across Europe […] is a waste […]

And that's what the discussion should've been on. But it wasn't, because it was misrepresented by the OP via a manipulated screenshot.

[–]d3rr 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I don't see how focusing on the definition is manipulation. The definition was important enough to be included and relevant to the law. You said it yourself, the state department has using that definition since 2010. The definition is offensive to some 1st amendment advocates, peace advocates, and human rights advocates.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Focusing on the definition is not manipulation. Making it appear that the definition is what's being restricted by the new law is. And that isn't even a definition; it's merely a set of examples.

I don't want to get too much into the politics of the matter here, but /u/Orangutan made it appear that Congress was saying one thing when it was saying another. That's lying.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Exactly.

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

what was represented as a new law by the US Congress was, in fact, merely a definition given by the EUMC

I think I see your point. This definition does not directly apply to Americans (yet!). I guess it's not a good idea to try to memeify laws.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yet..

Why should US laws apply to foreigners?

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It shouldn't, and this whole law shouldn't exist because it is racist.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fact.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I guess it's not a good idea to try to memeify laws.

I think this was more than that, though. The screenshot was deliberately edited to make it seem like that was a top-level part of the law; it wasn't just cropped.

It seems like that thing that… I can't remember who said it or what it was called, but that thing where you fill a community with fake undesirables and then criticise it for being full of undesirables. The thing is, we currently don't have the slightest defence against something like that happening, and I want us to be able to hold that off at least until the decentralisation happens.

[–]d3rr 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah critical context was omitted. One thing to keep in mind here is that this is a famous redditor who generally only posts A+++ material, so a huge upvote bias doesn't surprise me.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 6 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 4 fun -  (25 children)

Once again Wizzwizz is supporting the indefensible state/corporate position.

I wonder why that is...?

Hmmmmm.... I bet you'd love to down vote this. :-)

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

No, I'm not supporting the state/corporate position. At least, not here. ☺

Even if you disagree about this particular example, surely you agree in principle that lying about important things is bad, and that we should be checking for and calling out these lies.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Well, it looks like the bill that /u/Orangutan had posted had already passed into federal law on 1/14/2019.

H.R.672 - Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017

Even if you disagree about this particular example, surely you agree in principle that lying about important things is bad, and that we should be checking for and calling out these lies.

This is the bill passed into law.

Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017

This bill requires the Department of State to include in its Annual Report on International Religious Freedom information about each European country where there have been particularly significant threats or attacks against Jewish persons or institutions. The report shall include information about the security needs of such Jewish communities, U.S. efforts to partner with European law enforcement agencies and civil society groups, European public awareness initiatives to promote pluralism and tolerance, and efforts by European governments to adopt and apply a working definition of anti-Semitism.

This US law is designed to monitor alleged anti-Semitic activity in Europe.
However, it doesn't protect any other minority groups. Nothing about Arabs, Persians, Slavic, Hispanics, African, Asian, etc.

Why is the Congress passing laws requiring the US State Dept to monitor alleged activity in multiple countries in Europe?

The law exclusively benefits the Jewish community, while leaving out all other groups.

I didn't find any info that was false.

This is part of a larger Israeli campaign. Guns and Butter Podcast: The Global Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel. Everyone should listen to this important and informative podcast.

Israel is attempting to criminalize criticism of it's actions. The media isn't discussing this.

Thanks, u/HopeThatHalps, for spotting this when we were all taking the doctored screenshot at face value.

*Thanks, Wizzwizz for indentifying another character (HopeThatHalps) who is apparently involved in this Israeli campaign, and actively monitoring Saidit.

We'll be sure to keep an eye on HopeThatHalps, as well..

Also, thanks Wizzwizz for another bungled PSA, and for outing yourself and your motivations/intentions.

we should be checking for and calling out these lies

Agreed.

cc:
/u/Magnora7
/u/d3rr

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

I honestly don't care about the law. I care that /u/Orangutan made it seem like it was about one thing when it was actually another thing. If those things were both bad? Well, there's no reason that one should've been passed off as the other, then.

There's (almost always) no benefit to lying, unless your goal isn't to make the world better.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

I honestly don't care about the law.

Your hasbara is bunk. I doubt that a single person reading this thread will believe this statement.

There's (almost always) no benefit to lying, unless your goal isn't to make the world better.

I don't disagree with this. The question is: Better for whom?

Israeli politics isn't well known for transparency. Quite the opposite.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (18 children)

It's a US law. Doesn't affect me directly, and I don't really care enough to put in the effort to weigh up the pros and cons. But whether I care about the law isn't really what this is about either.

Look. Let's assume that I'm a shill, so everything I say has to be taken with a pinch of salt. Also take into account that I might be being paid by very smart people, who know that you know I'm a shill, to support things in order to encourage you to instinctively argue against them, and so convince more people of the stance you've been manipulated to support due to your status in this community. Also take into account that they'd be paying me to say this, too. Imagine that this entity is predicting you, then predicting you predicting them, then predicting you predicting them predicting you… and see how your model of their behaviour changes.

Now, if you can wrap your head around all that (it's pretty convoluted), consider: who benefits from these suggestions (under the line in the original post I made here) being followed? And who benefits from the association of those suggestions in people's minds with something they disagree with?

Now, how can you make this situation benefit your goals?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Let's assume that I'm a shill

Yes. We should.
I do.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're acting like a common troll. You didn't answer any of the questions posed in my comment, and I doubt you so much as thought about them. Even if I'm a shill, that doesn't make what I say wrong.

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

So, if someone just so happens to have an opinion that is counter to yours, they're a shill? You just dismiss everything they say no matter what?

/u/wizzwizz4 and I seem to share a lot of the same stances, am I a shill too? Is everyone who doesn't believe the jews run everything a paid for shill? You realize that is an INSANE amount of money to pay merely to try and convince you to believe the "globalist narrative", right?

When people have your beliefs there is ZERO room for discourse. There is ZERO room for the pyramid of debate and it goes against everything this site stands for. You've ALREADY made up your mind and your position, no matter how much contrary (factual) evidence is provided, will never change.

You must understand how it's nearly impossible to have a debate with someone like you due to this, right? I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, but I do want to say that you're stunting your own growth as a person by being this way.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Thanks for this. I was beginning to think I was going crazy; it's good to know I'm not the only one in the world outside my social circle with approximately this set of views.

To give /u/Tom_Bombadil credit, he is acting as a rational actor would if they had a ridiculously high certainty of everything they believe in (I'm talking tens of nines here). The amount of evidence required to get to such a point, however, is astronomical – if every single Jewish person in the world individually walked up to him and promised him that they were part of a conspiracy to take over the world, then it might be enough evidence to be that certain… but he clearly doesn't have that much evidence or we'd all be convinced by now.

The only solutions that I can think of are:

  • He determined this certainty before he became an approximately rational actor, and so should re-evaluate these beliefs in light of this incongruity.
  • He isn't an approximately rational actor.
  • This is one of his axioms; he's assigned a probability of 1 to it and literally infinite evidence is required to convince him otherwise.

I've probably missed something here; if I've made a faulty assumption or a faulty leap in thought please let me know.

[–]AschTheConjurer 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Oh, you're not crazy. Just scrolling down these comments and looking at Bombadil's comments - in context, no less - paints him as either a troll or a genuine anti-semite conspiracist. Poe's Law makes it impossible to tell which it is.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You must understand how it's nearly impossible to have a debate with someone like you due to this, right?

What exactly are you debating with me about? Are you debating another persons opinion for them?

Did you happen to listen to this podcast? Guns and Butter Podcast: The Global Campaign to Criminalize Criticism of Israel.

Are you disputing the speakers information?

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm disputing that just because someone follows more mainstream beliefs doesn't automatically qualify them as a "shill". The word shill is used to discredit someone solely based on an ad hominem attack. No matter what anyone says it will not matter as long as they are a shill. Hence there's zero counterargument when you label someone as a shill. It's anti-intellectual.

If you're truly right in your stance then you shouldn't have to resort to name calling. Whether someone truly is a shill or not should have no bearing on what the points they're making. If their points aren't valid then it doesn't matter who they are or who's paying them, you should be able to rationally argue against them.

Imagine if I just said "Oh you're just a conspiracy theorist, I don't give credit to anything you say". I might joke a bit or laugh at you, but I sincerely try to level with you guys and I do try to hear you out. It's lazy to just discredit someone and name call because they believe something you don't.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

You don't care??

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It's a US law. I don't live there.

[–]sawboss 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Speak for yourself. None of those votes were mine. At this point I'm pretty numb to antisemitic rage-bait.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I didn't vote it insightful either, because of my confusion.

In future, if you can bring yourself to, try debunking that kind of thing. It will really help.

[–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Debunking would be the upper-tier response for sure, but I assume anyone who's bought into racial bigotry deeply enough to make it their public facing identity will not be persuaded by facts and reason. The obtainable outcome is to offer everyone else reasons not to go there. I strongly doubt that I'm able to do it, and it sickens me to think that we're still having this same old stupid fight.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The thing is… there are people here who're vulnerable enough to be convinced by that sort of thing, if nobody's arguing against it. And nobody was. Heck, I was defending parts of a fictional law instead of noticing that it wasn't a real law in the first place.

[–]sawboss 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

if nobody's arguing against it

Where are all the people who have complained about the site becoming extreme or whatever? This is the reason for the Pyramid! If you sit on you hands now, don't complain if the extremes take over.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Mind if I quote this in my next PSA, if I get fed up enough to make another one?

[–]sawboss 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You may, but perhaps it would be better to paraphrase with reference to this discussion. Speaking of easily disproved but somehow widely accepted misconceptions:

https://saidit.net/s/funny/comments/mll/and_then_one_day/13rt

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, that's a good example! You win a prize.

[–]Alduin 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

We all need to do better.

Never gonna happen. If you're expecting to have the nonsense upvoted by no one at all then I submit that your expectations are unrealistic.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not no one, but fewer. I know that there are a few people who'd insightful vote this kind of thing whether or not they knew it was doctored…

[–]UmamiTofu 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tbh all meme political images and posters and "political humor" like that should just be ignored, as a rule.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

In other words, what was represented as a new law by the US Congress was, in fact, merely a definition given by the EUMC (quoted in an act requiring an increase in reporting stuff going on in Europe).

When congress passes legislation and the president signs it, it is the law. To suggest it isn't.. that would be lying.

Full text of the Law:

AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

To require continued and enhanced annual reporting to Congress in the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom on anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, the safety and security of European Jewish communities, and the efforts of the United States to partner with European governments, the European Union, and civil society groups, to combat anti-Semitism, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Combating European Anti-Semitism Act of 2017”.

SEC. 2. Findings.

Congress finds the following:

(1) During the past decade, there has been a steady increase in anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, resulting in European Jews being the targets of physical and verbal harassment and even lethal terrorist attacks, all of which has eroded personal and communal security and the quality of daily Jewish life.

(2) According to reporting by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), between 2005 and 2014, anti-Semitic incidents increased in France from 508 to 851; in Germany from 60 to 173; in Belgium from 58 to 130; in Italy from 49 to 86; and in the United Kingdom from 459 to 1,168.

(3) Anti-Zionism has at times devolved into anti-Semitic attacks, prompting condemnation from many European leaders, including French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

(4) Since 2010, the Department of State has adhered to the working definition of Anti-Semitism by the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). Some contemporary examples of anti-Semitism include the following:

(A) Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews (often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion).

(B) Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such, or the power of Jews as a collective, especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions.

(C) Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the State of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

(D) Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

(E) Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own countries.

(5) On October 16, 2004, the President signed into law the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004. This law provides the legal foundation for a reporting requirement provided by the Department of State annually on anti-Semitism around the world.

(6) In November 2015, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 354 by a vote of 418–0, urging the Secretary of State to continue robust United States reporting on anti-Semitism by the Department of State and the Special Envoy to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism.

(7) In 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), comprised of 31 member countries, adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism which stated: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”.

(8) The IHRA further clarified that manifestations of anti-Semitism might also target the State of Israel, conceived of as a Jewish collectivity. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms, and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

SEC. 3. Sense of Congress.

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) it is in the national interest of the United States to combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad;

(2) anti-Semitism is a challenge to the basic principles of tolerance, pluralism, and democracy, and the shared values that bind Americans and Europeans together;

(3) there is an urgent need to ensure the safety and security of European Jewish communities, including synagogues, schools, cemeteries, and other institutions;

(4) the United States should continue to emphasize the importance of combating anti-Semitism in multilateral bodies, including the United Nations, European Union institutions, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe;

(5) the Department of State should continue to thoroughly document acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement that occur around the world, and should continue to encourage other countries to do the same, and share their findings; and

(6) the Department of State should continue to work to encourage adoption by national government institutions and multilateral institutions of a working definition of anti-Semitism similar to the one adopted in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance context.

SEC. 4. Annual reporting on the state of anti-Semitism in Europe.

Paragraph (1) of section 102(b) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6412) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

“(G) ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE.—In addition to the information required under clause (vii) of subparagraph (A), with respect to each European country in which verbal or physical threats or attacks are particularly significant against Jewish persons, places of worship, schools, cemeteries, and other religious institutions, a description of—

“(i) the security challenges and needs of European Jewish communities and European law enforcement agencies in such countries to better protect such communities;

“(ii) to the extent practicable, the efforts of the United States Government over the reporting period to partner with European law enforcement agencies and civil society groups regarding the sharing of information and best practices to combat anti-Semitic incidents in Europe;

“(iii) European educational programming and public awareness initiatives that aim to collaborate on educational curricula and campaigns that impart shared values of pluralism and tolerance, and showcase the positive contributions of Jews in culture, scholarship, science, and art, with special attention to those segments of the population that exhibit a high degree of anti-Semitic animus; and

“(iv) efforts by European governments to adopt and apply a working definition of anti-Semitism.”.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (20 children)

This is the law. But you can't just pick arbitrary text from it and say that that text is the law. Otherwise, I could say that the law passed was:

the City of Washington […] in […] the United States of America […] may be cited as […] devolved […] or […] comprised of […] educational programming […] and art.

And that's not what the law says. Neither is what was shown in the screenshot.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

The screenshot showed a portion of the text, not cherry-picked pieces put together.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The point he's making is that if you take a section of something and say it's the entire thing then you're misleading people. His point has everything to do with the lack of context/info.

It's like taking a picture of your finger and calling it a detailed image of yourself. Yes, technically it's a part of you, but you're not just a single finger. You also have eyes and ears and arms and all that good stuff.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

if you take a section of something and say it's the entire thing

Yeah, but that didn't happen. Where did the post say that was the entire law? OP picked the part that was most disturbing to them, highlighted it and shared it. The additional context doesn't take away from the post, IMO. Our legislature has far more pressing issues than worring about Jewish persecution in Europe. The fact that they're spending their time writing, debating, and passing stuff like this supports the OP's position that Jews have much influence over the US government, and nobody has posted anything to counter that specific argument.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Where did the post say that was the entire law?

Oh, come on now. This is such a weak argument. I'm saying that it was presented as if it was. Again, I say "here's a picture of me". You see only a finger. You say "that's not a picture of your whole body" and I say "Of course not! I never said it was!" Yeah, I'm technically right, but I'm still very misleading.

The fact that they're spending their time writing, debating, and passing stuff like this supports the OP's position that Jews have much influence over the US government, and nobody has posted anything to counter that specific argument.

Maybe it's because the jews have had people like you and OP insinuating that they're evil warmongers who rule the world behind the scenes? This isn't new either, this is centuries of hate thrown at them. They're the only group that is hated to such a degree that one of our largest atrocities, Hitler's attempt at genocide, was committed against them. Do other groups deserve the same laws? Yes, but I can understand focusing on the jews.

There are very many people who HATE jews all over, I've seen them. Certain people may not like blacks or the spanish, but the jews get a different kind of hate. They're the only group of people I've seen universally despised all over the world. The second would be black people.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

people like you and OP insinuating that they're evil warmongers who rule the world behind the scenes

I see. You just make shit up and attribute it to others as you go along, just like you did with the OP's post.

[–]Zombi 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Lmao is that not a thing people say? Seriously, I see it a lot. People say the jews control the government, they start wars to profit off of them, all kinds of shit. I'll admit maybe you or OP didn't, but it's a very common sentiment.

Also, the holocaust definitely happened and there are definitely a large group of anti-Semites in the world.

[–]Jesus 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They do, not all Jews and especially not law abiding ones. 9/11 was a Mossad and Dual-Israel, Zionist operation, the majority who planned happened to be Jews. That means, 99.9% of Jews are normal nice people, I have a neighbor who is Jewsh, I won't lump him in with the crimes a hundred or so Jews, Christian Zionists and trained Jesuits commited but I will call it out. Becase the neoconseervative Zionists like to use judaism as a scapegoat.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You can certainly have these beliefs and while I don't agree with you, this just goes to show what I said is correct. If anything you're further proving the point I'm making by posting what you've posted.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Your argument is sound.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

But the portion was selected to misrepresent the meaning of the law. The image was edited to make it seem like that was a top-level list, when actually it was a second-level list. Red marks were placed to distract attention away from certain parts towards others.
We shouldn't have fallen for it.

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Fallen for what? It's an example of Jewish influence over US legislation, which supports the OP's claim.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

It's far, far weaker evidence than it was presented as being.

But, more importantly, it is being used by Saiditors as evidence, yet it was misrepresented. Surely this should be setting off alarm bells?

[–]34679 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

OP posted the part of the law he was outraged by, and shared it as evidence of Jewish influence over US legislation. How was it misrepresented? What lie did the OP tell?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

  1. It was edited so it appeared that this was the top level of the law. The indentation was removed. This suggested that these were part of the "list of directives".
  2. The OP omitted the context that stated that these were examples of things that would fit a definition. They weren't a definition, or a list of forbidden actions, or anything like that.

All in all, the OP made a deliberate misrepresentation of the law. That falls under my definition of "lie".

[–]34679 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

  1. Or, more likely, OP used the snipping tool to grab the part he was most outraged by because the full text wouldn't fit with the title. Go ahead and pull it up. Unless you're running 4K, it's not fitting on your screen.

  2. See 1. OP took a snip of that part of the law, and combined it with the header showing the name of the law, resolution number, sponsor, committee, etc. In other words, context that enables anyone to find the whole law and read it themselves.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

  1. No, it fits on my screen fine, and my screen is quite small. Note that it's ridiculously easy to produce an accurate version of the screenshot given by simply scrolling, then cropping the screenshot; a composite shot was wholly unnecessary.
  2. That would have taken an extra line; two at worst. Not all of that even would've been needed; just partial visibility of the last line before the extract would've served to make the context clear.

I suppose Hanlon's razor might apply here, though.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. No, it fits on my screen fine, and my screen is quite small. Note that it's ridiculously easy to produce an accurate version of the screenshot given by simply scrolling, then cropping the screenshot; a composite shot was wholly unnecessary.
  2. That would have taken an extra line; two at worst. Not all of that even would've been needed; just partial visibility of the last line before the extract would've served to make the context clear.

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

The bill/law system in the US is very tricky and completely corrupted. The same thing is starting in the EU.

In the US, they first get a catchy name, like "patriot act". In the EU it is just a boring number.

Usually they have something that is agreeable, but insert some stuff which can directly affect politics. Usually it is about giving the companies and/or military more money and power.

If the bill is denied in the EU, they change a few things and do it again. Over and over.

In the US, the bill is usually accepted right away, after every politicians has been paid for, or blackmailed. In the EU, there are usually "compromises". It is up to the state-media to make it seem like a good thing.

After the bill is accepted, new bills will follow that change "just a few things". They seem like little things, like changing some words. But these words have important meaning in the sentences. This means that the law can have totally different meaning. Usually it means that companies or pentagon become less responsible.

In the actual law we can see some possible entrances:
"...the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions."
"accusing .. Israel as a state.."
"Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interest of their own countries."
"Anti-Zionism has at times devolved into anti-Semitic attacks"

In the US there is already control of the news media, so it is easy for the public to swallow the new laws. The new rules in the EU also try to do this more. So control of the public becomes easier.

News that you may have missed this year: Protesters are attacked by police with explosives in France. Large groups of people protest for president Maduro. Isreal was bombing Palestina before the recent rocket attack. White helmets had created false flag. President of Israel pushes for US military support. Journalist is put in prison by UK for exposing war-crimes by US.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

And yet this law was misrepresented. We should've been having this discussion there, but instead – due to the doctoring of the screenshot – it was instead focussed around a fictional event and a fictional law (similar to the real one, but different enough that most of the conversation was irrelevant).

We should've picked up on this sooner. I should've, at the very least, but others should've too.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

due to the doctoring of the screenshot

You have repeatedly claimed this, but this is "an obvious lie".

Nothing was doctored.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

There is no way, on that site, to produce such an image with a screenshot (and that's ignoring the red circles). The image was cut up and stuff was moved around.

The shown portion was taken out of context and used to misrepresent the law. That is, in my book, doctoring.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

This is not true.

The user used the Windows "Snip Tool" and red marker to circle. This feature is on every PC that has Windows 8, or later. That's a layup.

That's a suspicious statement coming from you. I thought you were familiar with computers, and offered to help the admins with code?

The shown portion was taken out of context and used to misrepresent the law. That is, in my book, doctoring.

Also false. It was not taken out of context. The bill is legit, and it contains the info from the screenshot. That is a fact. That is not doctoring.

Using doctored as a description is "an obvious lie".

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You've got a Windows machine too? Well, could you use Problem Steps Recorder (or a third-party screen recording software) to demonstrate the process of taking a similar screenshot, please? I don't expect you to do the red circles stuff.

I do know how computers work, but I wasn't using that knowledge when I determined that the image isn't possible to produce just by taking a screenshot. I was merely observing that the law only scrolls up and down, but the text was moved sideways.

(Though, doctoring aside, it's still misrepresentation to take the extract of the law out of context. Your apparent fixation on the process of doctoring suggests that you're trying to poke one hole in part of my argument and say that that brings the whole thing down. It doesn't. The doctoring bit was tacked on afterwards, and the argument stands without it.)

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Go to your PC programs menu search bar.
Type in "snip tool".
Press enter.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

… That's not what I asked and you know it. It doesn't prove your argument in the slightest.

My argument stands.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Well, if anyone else wants to look up the snipping tool then they can.

It will appear in they're search box before the word "snipping' can be typed in.

Your argument is baseless and dishonest. Nothing was out of context.

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

The snipping tool allows you to take screenshots, and allows you to doctor them. Assuming /u/Orangutan used Snipping Tool to do this, you still haven't shown that it's not doctored.

This is an attempt to distract from the argument. You're providing irrelevant evidence that doesn't support your assertions. I'm sorry, but that won't work here.

[–]swordofdamocles42 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

except it does actually say it.....

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/672/text/ih

i knew you were being tricky.

there are 4 versions and you only read the one that suited your bias the most?

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I know it says it. It says it in the version that's in law. But it was taken out of context, and twisted to mean something else.

[–]swordofdamocles42 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

not at all.

the original context was alluding to the fact that jews have too much power in the USA.

just the fact that this bill was proposed confirms that. never mind it actually got passed into law.. albiet watered down. but still....

[–]wizzwizz4[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the original context was alluding to the fact that jews have too much power in the USA.

  • I don't consider this claim to be true, fwiw. That aside:
  • I think we're using different meanings of "context", here. My "original context" is the one in the published law from which the text is taken.