5 ms·

>It's extremely disingenuous to assume that attacks on George Soros are necessarily anti-Semitic. The messages may be paid for by people with other overall int

>It's extremely disingenuous to assume that attacks on George Soros are necessarily anti-Semitic. The messages may be paid for by people with other overall intents, but the receptive audience for the messages is people like that recent bomb maker. And the people paying for the messages know this. I could tell people all day long that something was being funded by Warren Buffet and nobody would give a shit. Tell them it is funded by Soros and suddenly you have raised a following crowd of prime fuckwits and I do not think it is because he is Hungarian. edit - assembled prime fuckwits, you know who you are, there is a reason I picked Warren Buffet for comparison and once you have bothered to look it up, you are really not going to like it.

Jach 8y ago
Maybe it simply has something to do with what Soros has funded[0], and partly with what he's alleged to have funded (such as riots), that people don't approve of? Not the act of funding. Additionally Soros has been at this for decades. I think that you would find people caring about Buffet funded projects if he had the same streak. Honestly I'm just impressed by the master play at deflecting so much criticism, critics are either anti-semites or part of a nutty conspiracy group like the fake moon landing folks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_...
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  I can't believe I'd see someone the whole pull the whole 'paid protestor' nonsense here on HN but here we are. The reason why people dismiss a lot of criticism against Soros is because a lot of the criticism is not based in reality, period. I am more than happy to criticize rich billionaires but the meme around Soros is clearly based around the anti-Semitic idea of a Jewish cabal running everything behind the scene rather than any sort of issue with wealth.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
    - nhaz 8y ago
      The downvotes here say all that needs to be said. Just put your fingers in your ears and scream "antisemites!!!". It's like that episode of Seinfeld, everything is antisemitic, even Jews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQpvK72le4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQpvK72le4Q
  - virtuabhi 8y ago
    Downvote such commentators. It is a common tactic of racists to write anti-semitic comments and pretend that they are only asking innocent questions.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Really the thing is that said criticisms need actual substance to be legitimate. Every kook blames him for stuff that happens anyway. People protest or riot when angry about something. A pattern of innuendos doesn't mean anything other than some people hate him. Hillary Clinton isn't a leader of a cabal of assassins. Vladmir Putin also has plenty of innuendos about killing people. However he actually does have them and has taken pains to make it clear it was him doing stuff like using rare nerve agents instead of any far cheaper method of assassination - just common cyanide in a large enough dose kills just as well as polonium, better in fact but it causes too quick and clean a death for terror purposes.
  - Jach 8y ago
    I don't disagree that some criticisms need substance! Lacking substance is part of why it's sometimes rather easy to make the play that critics are conspiracy kooks. Do you have any advice for how to better express what I wanted to express, which is that it's what people believe he has funded (some of it founded, some of it not) and not that he has Jewish ancestry that gets him so much flack? I thought the "alleged" qualifier might be sufficient, but clearly not since I still have someone indirectly calling me a racist.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      Not even if you stick it in quotes. Why are people accusing him of unfounded stuff, as you say they are doing. What is their reason to make up or spread unfounded accusations that rile these other folks up that you mention, why are they doing that, do you think?
      - Jach 8y ago
        Perhaps you're right that the people who allege the unfounded stuff are doing so for anti-semetic reasons, it doesn't follow that the people who believe such allegations and repeat them do so because of anti-semetic reasons. I admit some of them will. I just find there's a simpler explanation in that the particular stuff, founded or unfounded, is undesirable in itself to many people, independent of whether it's a Jewish person doing it or not. Put another way, the criticisms I see associated with Soros are always in relationship to some alleged act. I imagine there are criticisms of Soros that are nothing but some reminder that he has Jewish heritage (like that parentheses wrapping thing around Jewish names a couple years ago) and those you could call clear anti-semite criticisms. You'd see such people do the same to any Jewish person who does nothing but give their surplus wealth to GiveWell. But you won't see the same relatively intense response on that hypothetical Jewish person, because there's not a critical mass of non anti-semites who disapprove of giving to GiveWell, but there is a critical mass of non anti-semites who disapprove of the mission statements of groups Soros' money has helped finance (or is alleged to help finance).
Nasrudith 8y ago
But wouldn't that be on them always ethically? Exposing evidence that definitively proves Bill Cosby is a rapist might cause some idiot to try lynching black men as all rapists but that doesn't mean reporting him suddenly becomes immoral.
meowface 8y ago
Warren Buffett generally isn't a political financier. The Koch brothers and George Soros are.
- starbeast 8y ago
  And I am generally not sarcastic. No, really.
  - meowface 8y ago
    So why did you pick Warren Buffett for comparison? I did look it up, and do not see what point you were trying to make.
    - starbeast 8y ago
      He was one of Obama's first funders, advisers and public fundraisers, way back when Obama was still a senator. It is very unlikely that Obama would have become and then stayed president without Warren Buffett's initial and continued support. Warren Buffett is a liberal, very politically involved billionaire philanthropist, very much like George Soros, but with quite literally ten times as much money and political influence. Furthermore, he has promised to spend all of this money on fluffy liberal causes and social welfare programs and all sorts of other scary commie-sounding stuff before he dies. And he is very old. Yet, where the hell are all the Warren Buffett conspiracies? He must feel really left out.
      - philwelch 8y ago
        It's easier for each side to have one designated boogeyman. Why do the Koch Brothers take all the heat from progressives when there's still Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel?
        starbeast 8y ago
        >Why do the Koch Brothers take all the heat from progressives when there's still Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel? I'm not sure they do. Mercer particularly is getting a lot of flack right now. I just find it slightly odd that people put George Soros up as some scary liberal billionaire kingmaker while completely and utterly ignoring an actual liberal billionaire kingmaker.
throwawaymath 8y ago
I don't follow what you're trying to get at with Warren Buffett. What are you referring to that people won't like?
Iamhisalt 8y ago
>people like the recent bomb maker. You actually believe that was real?! Ok.
changchuming 8y ago
Some people hate Soros because of his role in the Asian financial crisis, where he literally broke banks which resulted in many going into poverty. He has also shorted the British pound and other currencies, so I imagine that there are people mad at him for that too.

Jach 8y ago

Maybe it simply has something to do with what Soros has funded[0], and partly with what he's alleged to have funded (such as riots), that people don't approve of? Not the act of funding. Additionally Soros has been at this for decades. I think that you would find people caring about Buffet funded projects if he had the same streak. Honestly I'm just impressed by the master play at deflecting so much criticism, critics are either anti-semites or part of a nutty conspiracy group like the fake moon landing folks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_George_Soros https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_projects_supported_by_...

fzeroracer 8y ago
I can't believe I'd see someone the whole pull the whole 'paid protestor' nonsense here on HN but here we are. The reason why people dismiss a lot of criticism against Soros is because a lot of the criticism is not based in reality, period. I am more than happy to criticize rich billionaires but the meme around Soros is clearly based around the anti-Semitic idea of a Jewish cabal running everything behind the scene rather than any sort of issue with wealth.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
  - nhaz 8y ago
    The downvotes here say all that needs to be said. Just put your fingers in your ears and scream "antisemites!!!". It's like that episode of Seinfeld, everything is antisemitic, even Jews. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQpvK72le4Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQpvK72le4Q
- virtuabhi 8y ago
  Downvote such commentators. It is a common tactic of racists to write anti-semitic comments and pretend that they are only asking innocent questions.
Nasrudith 8y ago
Really the thing is that said criticisms need actual substance to be legitimate. Every kook blames him for stuff that happens anyway. People protest or riot when angry about something. A pattern of innuendos doesn't mean anything other than some people hate him. Hillary Clinton isn't a leader of a cabal of assassins. Vladmir Putin also has plenty of innuendos about killing people. However he actually does have them and has taken pains to make it clear it was him doing stuff like using rare nerve agents instead of any far cheaper method of assassination - just common cyanide in a large enough dose kills just as well as polonium, better in fact but it causes too quick and clean a death for terror purposes.
- Jach 8y ago
  I don't disagree that some criticisms need substance! Lacking substance is part of why it's sometimes rather easy to make the play that critics are conspiracy kooks. Do you have any advice for how to better express what I wanted to express, which is that it's what people believe he has funded (some of it founded, some of it not) and not that he has Jewish ancestry that gets him so much flack? I thought the "alleged" qualifier might be sufficient, but clearly not since I still have someone indirectly calling me a racist.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    Not even if you stick it in quotes. Why are people accusing him of unfounded stuff, as you say they are doing. What is their reason to make up or spread unfounded accusations that rile these other folks up that you mention, why are they doing that, do you think?
    - Jach 8y ago
      Perhaps you're right that the people who allege the unfounded stuff are doing so for anti-semetic reasons, it doesn't follow that the people who believe such allegations and repeat them do so because of anti-semetic reasons. I admit some of them will. I just find there's a simpler explanation in that the particular stuff, founded or unfounded, is undesirable in itself to many people, independent of whether it's a Jewish person doing it or not. Put another way, the criticisms I see associated with Soros are always in relationship to some alleged act. I imagine there are criticisms of Soros that are nothing but some reminder that he has Jewish heritage (like that parentheses wrapping thing around Jewish names a couple years ago) and those you could call clear anti-semite criticisms. You'd see such people do the same to any Jewish person who does nothing but give their surplus wealth to GiveWell. But you won't see the same relatively intense response on that hypothetical Jewish person, because there's not a critical mass of non anti-semites who disapprove of giving to GiveWell, but there is a critical mass of non anti-semites who disapprove of the mission statements of groups Soros' money has helped finance (or is alleged to help finance).

Nasrudith 8y ago

But wouldn't that be on them always ethically? Exposing evidence that definitively proves Bill Cosby is a rapist might cause some idiot to try lynching black men as all rapists but that doesn't mean reporting him suddenly becomes immoral.

meowface 8y ago

Warren Buffett generally isn't a political financier. The Koch brothers and George Soros are.

starbeast 8y ago
And I am generally not sarcastic. No, really.
- meowface 8y ago
  So why did you pick Warren Buffett for comparison? I did look it up, and do not see what point you were trying to make.
  - starbeast 8y ago
    He was one of Obama's first funders, advisers and public fundraisers, way back when Obama was still a senator. It is very unlikely that Obama would have become and then stayed president without Warren Buffett's initial and continued support. Warren Buffett is a liberal, very politically involved billionaire philanthropist, very much like George Soros, but with quite literally ten times as much money and political influence. Furthermore, he has promised to spend all of this money on fluffy liberal causes and social welfare programs and all sorts of other scary commie-sounding stuff before he dies. And he is very old. Yet, where the hell are all the Warren Buffett conspiracies? He must feel really left out.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      It's easier for each side to have one designated boogeyman. Why do the Koch Brothers take all the heat from progressives when there's still Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel?
      - starbeast 8y ago
        >Why do the Koch Brothers take all the heat from progressives when there's still Sheldon Adelson and Robert Mercer and Peter Thiel? I'm not sure they do. Mercer particularly is getting a lot of flack right now. I just find it slightly odd that people put George Soros up as some scary liberal billionaire kingmaker while completely and utterly ignoring an actual liberal billionaire kingmaker.

throwawaymath 8y ago

I don't follow what you're trying to get at with Warren Buffett. What are you referring to that people won't like?

Iamhisalt 8y ago

>people like the recent bomb maker. You actually believe that was real?! Ok.

changchuming 8y ago

Some people hate Soros because of his role in the Asian financial crisis, where he literally broke banks which resulted in many going into poverty. He has also shorted the British pound and other currencies, so I imagine that there are people mad at him for that too.