Double standard

[James Kovacich]

Because Mel "is" proving himself to be a 1st rate moron.

 

[Steve]

In vino veritas is even older, however, imagine where you'd be if you did sober everything you said you'd do drunk...

Don, it looks to me like there's a double standard here, but it's the people making excuses for Gibson. The guy needs help, and I hope he gets it.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Don, it looks to me like there's a double standard here, but it's the people making excuses for Gibson. The guy needs help, and I hope he gets it.

Who has been making excuses for Gibson? I certainly haven't seen any. I've seen lots of people critisizing him, however.

I also haven't seen people making excuses for Stone, interestingly enough. I haven't seen a whole lot of comments about his remarks by the MSM. If I didn't know better I'd think people were ignoring him - so they didn't have to make excuses.

Pax,

Chris

 

[CanuckMA]

Because Mel Gibson is Australian?

Or maybe because one was a racist drunken rant and the other a more considered opinion over precisely what influence a hideous passage of events for one group during the Second World War has coloured and skewed the presentation of that period ever since?

I shall have to read the source more carefully before I finally decide, of course. But one event seems to me to be clear racism induced by the simplicity that alcohol induces. Whereas the other is not anti-semitism but a question as to the impact of Holocaust Guilt on the media (fictional and otherwise) and how that translates through to international relations.

...deep breath...
...deep breath...
...deep breath...


How an 'event' for one group coloured a period of time???
How the hell can you reduce the organized, systematized slaughter of half the Jewish population to an 'event'??????

You simply have no clue of the impact of that 'event'.

I grew up in a house where the entire family, extended or otherwise, lived in the same house. All 5 of us.
I grew up in a house where my parents were frightened by a knock on the door.
It had a profound effect on my generation. It will have a profound effect on my kids' generation, they grew up with an extended family of 12. It will likely affect their kids' generation.

It has been over 70 years and we are now back at the same population level. It destroyed a rich culture.

It is not an 'event'. That butcher cannot be 'explained' in 'context'.

The anti-semite's greatest victory is when good people start with the "I'll have to study it more". Sowing the seed of doubt. Usually followed by the 'Jews control the media, so you can't really trust what it says'.

Tell me, when you go to church on Sunday, do you have security guards at the doors? Because WE have to.

 

[teekin]

...deep breath...
...deep breath...
...deep breath...


How an 'event' for one group coloured a period of time???
How the hell can you reduce the organized, systematized slaughter of half the Jewish population to an 'event'??????

You simply have no clue of the impact of that 'event'.

I grew up in a house where the entire family, extended or otherwise, lived in the same house. All 5 of us.
I grew up in a house where my parents were frightened by a knock on the door.
It had a profound effect on my generation. It will have a profound effect on my kids' generation, they grew up with an extended family of 12. It will likely affect their kids' generation.

It has been over 70 years and we are now back at the same population level. It destroyed a rich culture.

It is not an 'event'. That butcher cannot be 'explained' in 'context'.

The anti-semite's greatest victory is when good people start with the "I'll have to study it more". Sowing the seed of doubt. Usually followed by the 'Jews control the media, so you can't really trust what it says'.

Tell me, when you go to church on Sunday, do you have security guards at the doors? Because WE have to.

in Canada? really? that is ****ing tragic. I've led a sheltered life I suppose. To me " the Jews controll the Media" makes as much sense as " the Buhdists control the soy market".

As for the world in 1930-1950's the theme seemed to be antisocial sociopaths in power, all over the world. How many people ( non-combatants) did Stalin and Hitler send to their death???? Perhaps once it gets into the millions it becomes too overwhelming to interalize, to comprehend. :erg: It's just an abstract number that in No Way can reflect the scale of human suffering it trys too.

lori

 

[Ramirez]

Who has been making excuses for Gibson? I certainly haven't seen any. I've seen lots of people critisizing him, however.

I also haven't seen people making excuses for Stone, interestingly enough. I haven't seen a whole lot of comments about his remarks by the MSM. If I didn't know better I'd think people were ignoring him - so they didn't have to make excuses.

Pax,

Chris

Well it is certainly hard to ignore Gibson. Stone makes a comment, it gets reported then he goes under the radar. The media is just that, they report news, unfortunately they report salacious news because that is what interests the public.

If Stone were doing the bizarre things Gibson is doing, the MSM would be listing his anti-semitic comments along with his demands for blowjobs before burning down the house.

 

[Sukerkin]

You are entitled to your reactions, Canuck and I would not dream of belittling the tragedies of that period. I think you perhaps read more into what I said than was there, maybe because you have previously butted heads with those who seek to hide or explain away what happened?

Before I changed careers into engineering, I used to be a historian and that can lead to a dispassionate tone when writing about major events of history. If that non-demonstrative tone offended you, then I am sorry to have caused such a reaction.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Well it is certainly hard to ignore Gibson. Stone makes a comment, it gets reported then he goes under the radar.

How is this different than what Gibson did? He made a comment that was recorded and then played over and over again in the media. Stone made a comment that was recorded which was played once or twice and then roundly ignored. Both men didn't go on and on making repeated comments. Stone's was dropped, Gibson's wasn't.

The difference was in the delivery. Gibson's was obviously made in a state of inebriation or other altered state coupled with high emotions because of troubles with his relationship with his girlfriend. Stone's, on the other hand, was lucid, calm, one could say calculated.

The media is just that, they report news, unfortunately they report salacious news because that is what interests the public.

Maybe. But if they were in the reporting news business you'd think the cold, calculated anti-semitism of someone who is supposed to be nubered amongst the open-minded, tolerant elites would be of more interest than the ravings of someone who they had already portrayed as a bigot and alcoholic. After all, the Gibson story is so much "dog bites man" according to the media's own narrative. That, by definition, isn't news.

If Stone were doing the bizarre things Gibson is doing, the MSM would be listing his anti-semitic comments along with his demands for blowjobs before burning down the house.

What's more bizarre, some guy who is probably drunk who has obvious emtional problems ranting to his girl friend or a man with a lot of media influence and who is the favored of the multi-culturalist elites calmly talking about the need to put Hitler and his crimes "in context"? To me the answer is clear. What is even more bizarre is that good, open minded liberals see nothing wrong with Stone's anti-semitism.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If one reads history (or even searches Google Books for that matter), one quickly finds that the last 400 years of the Western world are rife with antisemitic accusations.

In our times, we think about antisemitism as being restricted primarily to a specific time (the years running up to WWII) and a specific country (Germany). In fact, most of the Western world shared a similar negative view on Jews.

Henry Ford wrote a book about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

Funny, that's not something I was taught in school. I thought he was just the inventor of 'mass production' and the man who revolutionized the automobile industry.

Popular Science, in 1900, published an article debunking current rumors that Jews 'controlled the banking industry'.

Boon's South Africa, in 1885, wrote:

I think if there were no more Jews, and it was known that a single one example of this race existed anywhere, people would travel a hundred leagues to see it, even to shake hands, but now people turn out of their way. What a consummation to be devoutly hoped for, a time when one specimen only, and, as a curiosity, to be only seen in some future Barnum's—showing the present order of things reversed, a Christian making profit out of a Jew, but what an awful connexion for the Heine of the past.

I also read statements that show a modicum of intelligence, even in ages when antisemitism was at a fever pitch:

Phrenological Magazine, Alfred Storey, 1881:

Circumstances have of late tended to bring the racial characteristics of the Jews into more than common prominence. We have seen in Germany, and, to a lesser extent, in Russia, a feeling of deep hatred move the masses against them. In the former country it was with difficulty restrained from leading to actual violence, if, indeed, the danger has yet passed. In the over-burthened Fatherland the cry is that the Jews monopolise the sources of wealth, and that they crowd the professions, and other pursuits of peace and profit.

Professor Karl Vogt, of Geneva, the eminent naturalist, has cleverly illustrated the prejudices now taking such ugly practical expression in Germany, the land inhabited by a " people of thinkers." He remarks :
" It is said :
"' Jews cheat!' Well, if they do, why are you stupid enough to let yourselves be cheated ?
" Further:
"' The Jews have absolute control of the public press !' May be, it is so ; but why have you been foolish and simple-minded enough to let it pass into their hands ?
" Again :
"' Jews reign supreme in commerce, on exchange, and in money-matters generally !' Very probably this is exactly as you say; but how could such a small minority do that, if they were not men of superior intelligence, quick-eyed, and sharp, and if they did not work with enormous energy and assiduity ?
" And again:
" ' The Jews control more offices, count among their ranks more members of the professions (lawyers, physicians, artists, journalists, &c.) than they should in proportion to their number !' No doubt that is so ; but, considering how much they are disliked by some governments, is this not the most conclusive proof that they are more capable, or, at least, know how to employ their abilities to better advantages, than others ?
" And lastly:
"' The wealth of the people will pass into their hands exclusively in a short time !'
" Very likely it will. For they are temperate and saving ; they work and transact business with unremitting diligence, day and night; they are very fond of their families, and, as a rule, lead a happy, domestic life. Why should they therefore not grow and prosper ?
" Go and do likewise!"
The great savant concludes by declaring that the agitation in Germany is nothing but a manifestation of rage, emanating from those who are on a lower level intellectually than the race attacked—because they are civilised for many generations less than their victims.

We are shocked when someone says something overtly antisemitic today; but such prejudices are ancient, and are common to nearly every Western nation's history. From Europe to the UK to the US and even to Africa, our common history include a frequent uprising of hatred for Jews and common accusations about what "Jews control," as well as resentment for that supposed behavior.

 

[Ramirez]

How is this different than what Gibson did?





Maybe. But if they were in the reporting news business you'd think the cold, calculated anti-semitism of someone who is supposed to be nubered amongst the open-minded, tolerant elites would be of more interest than the ravings of someone who they had already portrayed as a bigot and alcoholic. After all, the Gibson story is so much "dog bites man" according to the media's own narrative. That, by definition, isn't news.



What's more bizarre, some guy who is probably drunk who has obvious emtional problems ranting to his girl friend or a man with a lot of media influence and who is the favored of the multi-culturalist elites calmly talking about the need to put Hitler and his crimes "in context"? To me the answer is clear. What is even more bizarre is that good, open minded liberals see nothing wrong with Stone's anti-semitism.

Pax,

Chris

Gibson made anti-semitic statements while driving drunk and confronting police. Like it or not the public loves sensationalism , it is not the alleged liberal media making a big deal of it, it is the public, media is just pandering to them.

Then he gets into a confrontation with a television host (who is jewish by they way....guess that doesn't stop him from being painted a liberal making a big deal out of Gibson and ignoring Stone) which brings it up again.

Then he gets into another controversy with his current girlfriend and his whole past history of bizarre behaviour including the anti-semitic comments are dredged up yet again.

That is how it is different than Stone, Stone isn't making a complete *** of himself constantly and making headlines.

But if they were in the reporting news business you'd think the cold, calculated anti-semitism of someone who is supposed to be nubered amongst the open-minded, tolerant elites would be of more interest than the ravings of someone who they had already portrayed as a bigot and alcoholic.

poll your friends, the most rabid conservative ones and find out how many would see Stone's story, yawn and turn the page and how many would see Gibson's stories and keep reading. Once again you are placing blame on the media when you should be blaming the public's interest in sensational stories.

What is even more bizarre is that good, open minded liberals see nothing wrong with Stone's anti-semitism.

Name one. Find me these open minded liberals that are okay Stone's antisemitism, this is just a strawman you have created.

 

[James Kovacich]

Sorry for the topic diversion but the world needs to come together and realize that their racist remarks may in fact condemn their own ancestors. DNA studies are coming out with facts about who we are and our ancestors were. Myself being half Spanish found this to be interesting:

One in five Spaniards and Portuguese has a Jewish ancestor, while a tenth of Iberians boast North African ancestors, finds new research.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia.html

Searching DNA studies on Pubmed backs this up. To put this into perspective, think of any countries that have Spanish blood. They may or may not not resemble their ancestors but they obviously have ancestors they didn't realize they had. They same goes here in the US, most don't really know the DNA makeup of our ancestors. Theres so much more to who we are. We all know are nationalities but how many know the histories of our families homelands?

We are one people.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

At one point during the last Ice Age, all humans were down to just a few thousand individuals. We were this close to going extinct. We are all related.

 

[chrispillertkd]

Gibson made anti-semitic statements while driving drunk and confronting police. Like it or not the public loves sensationalism , it is not the alleged liberal media making a big deal of it, it is the public, media is just pandering to them.

Then he gets into a confrontation with a television host (who is jewish by they way....guess that doesn't stop him from being painted a liberal making a big deal out of Gibson and ignoring Stone) which brings it up again.

Then he gets into another controversy with his current girlfriend and his whole past history of bizarre behaviour including the anti-semitic comments are dredged up yet again.

Yes, like I said, it's completely a pattern with Gibson. It's not news in any real sense of the word.

That is how it is different than Stone, Stone isn't making a complete *** of himself constantly and making headlines.

Which was pretty much what I was trying to point out. Gibson's alcoholism and emotional problems isn't exactly helping him keep things under wraps and it's conceivable that at least some of his rantings stem from these problems (this isn't an excuse for his behavior, just a possible explanation).

Stone, on the other hand, isn't "making headlines" and isn't sufering from alcoholism or emotional/mental problems. He's thougt about things, Analyzed them and, apparently, has no problem making anti-Semitic statements in a seemingly reasonable manner. This is worse than Gibson (who is pretty bad) for that exact reason. In Stone we have the "reasonableness" of anti-Semitism given a pass by the guardians of multiculturalism and open-mindedness.

poll your friends, the most rabid conservative ones and find out how many would see Stone's story, yawn and turn the page and how many would see Gibson's stories and keep reading. Once again you are placing blame on the media when you should be blaming the public's interest in sensational stories.

Actually, most of my friends find them both pretty repugnant.

Name one. Find me these open minded liberals that are okay Stone's antisemitism, this is just a strawman you have created.

My point was that you can't find any liberals denouncing Stone. At least I can't. Can you? I'd be happy to see some people from the MSM actually reacting in disgust to what he's said. Please help me out and point me in the right direction.

If you'd be interested in one liberal's take on liberal anti-Semitism, however, you might want to read this article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/sophisticated-liberal-jew_b_191135.html (I'm assuming, of course, that Tarico's self-identification as a Liberal isn't part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and that the Huffington Post isn't suddenlly a conservative bastion).

Pax,

Chris

 

[Ramirez]

My point was that you can't find any liberals denouncing Stone. At least I can't. Can you? I'd be happy to see some people from the MSM actually reacting in disgust to what he's said. Please help me out and point me in the right direction.

Chris

This is Michael Coren, well known in Canada as a conservative defending Gibson by drawing parallels to Downey, Baldwin and Polanski.....puhleeze!

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/07/16/14738186.html

Now find me the liberal commentator defending what Stone said.

 

[Archangel M]

Like the media needs a "course of conduct" to make something into a media sensation...if it was the "right person" they could go for weeks (if not months) on one event.

 

[teekin]

At one point during the last Ice Age, all humans were down to just a few thousand individuals. We were this close to going extinct. We are all related.

Yup we are all related closer than that. I think 6 degrees of Seperation had something to say about that. I have allways liked the quote "we all are made of Stardust".

Lori

 

[chrispillertkd]

This is Michael Coren, well known in Canada as a conservative defending Gibson by drawing parallels to Downey, Baldwin and Polanski.....puhleeze!

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/07/16/14738186.html

Now find me the liberal commentator defending what Stone said.

Did you not read anything I posted? You can't find Libs defending Stone because you can't find them even mentioning his anti-Semitism. It's a non-issue for them. They don't care he's anti-Semitic.

The link I provided made the point that anti-Semitism is present in the Left, and subtley so. And it's a point made by a Liberal writing for a Liberal media outlet. This is just another example.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Sukerkin]

At one point during the last Ice Age, all humans were down to just a few thousand individuals. We were this close to going extinct. We are all related.

Darned straight. It's a fact I remind myself of sometimes when I become too 'umbraged' about what 'The' French or 'The' Yanks or the 'The' Somali's et al are getting up to.

As Grendel noted above, we don't have to go all that far down our family trees before we start to find common links.

I reckon for a species that nearly 'bought it' and that can't stop fighting amongst itself we've done pretty good.

 

[Ramirez]

You can't find Libs defending Stone because you can't find them even mentioning his anti-Semitism. It's a non-issue for them. They don't care he's anti-Semitic.


Chris

You made the strawman argument that liberals don't care about Stone, then require me to prove a negative, it's up to you to find me the liberal demonizing Gibson but defending Stone.

And Sam Rubin? He is a member of the media and I suppose fits in this broad brush you tar everyone in it as a liberal. He didn't as far as I know say anything about Stone but he took on Gibson over his comments....you are making the assumption that it is a non-issue for him because he hasn't publicly said anything.

 

[chrispillertkd]

You made the strawman argument that liberals don't care about Stone, then require me to prove a negative, it's up to you to find me the liberal demonizing Gibson but defending Stone.

No, it requires you to find an example of one who critisized Stone for his anti-Semitism, that's all. It should be easy to do. It should be.

And Sam Rubin? He is a member of the media and I suppose fits in this broad brush you tar everyone in it as a liberal.

I have no idea what his political leanings are. I had to google him to find out who he is. What I didn't see was any indication he said anything about Oliver Stone's remarks.

He didn't as far as I know say anything about Stone but he took on Gibson over his comments....you are making the assumption that it is a non-issue for him because he hasn't publicly said anything.

It's not erally an assumption. It's a conclusion, based on Rubin's and other media figures own actions. Rubin could easily prove me wrong, however (which I would love him to do) and demonstrate that for the media establishment anti-Semitism from a leftist non-Christian is as repugnant as anti-Semitism from a conservative Christian.

Have you found any left leaning denunciations of Oliver Stone yet? I would actually like to see some as it would restore a bit of my lost confidence in the media. Or was Rubin and his denunciation of Gibson the only thing you could come up with to demonstrate that the media take's Oliver Stone's anti-Semitism seriously?

Pax,

Chris