4 ms·

Uhh Stephen Miller, political advisor to the 2016 Trump Administration, whom is Jewish and descendent of Jewish refugees to the USA (from 1900's anti-jewish r

by s5300 5y ago

Uhh Stephen Miller, political advisor to the 2016 Trump Administration, whom is Jewish and descendent of Jewish refugees to the USA (from 1900's anti-jewish riots in Russian area) is a self proclaimed (but now "retracted") white supremacist, and quite obviously, by everything he's ever supported in his political career and personal life statements, a true fascist. Quite literally, statement from his other Jewish family members: "I have watched with dismay and increasing horror as my nephew, an educated man who is well aware of his heritage, has become the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family's life in this country." Dr. David S. Glosser, uncle of Stephen Miller[66] - via his Wiki page. Jews can be fascists. Just like there were some (very violent, even given the circumstances) black slave/plantation owners in the United States. There's a lot of psychology that attempts to try to explain why these people end up going down the routes they do, perhaps you could look into it. However, given the short time of your account here and it's karma, in posting like this, it's hard not to make the assumption you may either be very misinformed or very heavily biased in trying to push your own truth.

BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
So Shapiro is (or could be) far-right because another Jew - Stephen Miller has an uncle who thought that if the immigration policy that Steven Miller champions had been implemented a hundred years ago, then their family would not have been able to migrate to the USA. So now we extrapolate a little according to the conclusion we want to reach and that's fascism - "authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy"
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  The argument of the commenter you're replying to is not that "Shapiro is (or could be) far-right because [...]". Rather, the argument is "The argument that a Jewish person cannot be far-right is invalid because [...]". The difference is subtle, and of course the person you're answering may well consider Shapiro as being far-right, or even a literal fascist. And you both may disagree on the strict definitions of both terms but, either way, accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Case in point: 1. The article mentions Shapiro as being "right-wing". 2. Top-level comment first implies the article says Shapiro is "far-right", and then confounds the general concept of "far-right" with maybe Nazism or antisemitism in general to make their argument that him being Jewish makes it impossible that he is far-right. 3. A reply states that Jewish political figure Stephen Miller identified with white supremacy and fits the(ir) definition of a fascist, as a counterpoint to the previous argument. 4. You disagree with the argument that Shapiro is (or could be) far-right, because you disagree that Stephen Miller fits the strict definition of Fascism. ...and all this was originally triggered because the linked article said: «Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others.»
  - growup12345 5y ago
    The really funny thing is that no one reads the article: >> Facebook’s reach statistics show that mainstream news content is far more common on Facebook than the far-right content Roose was featuring. And this reference to the content Roose is featuring is indeed: >> Journalist Kevin Roose began publishing a Twitter feed in July 2020 that showcased the 10 “top performing” links on Facebook as determined by Facebook’s Crowdtangle analytics tool. Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others. So everyone’s carefully constructed contrived debate schematics topple.
    - s5300 5y ago
      >The really funny thing is that no one reads the article Not sure if you meant to reply to somebody else, but that has nothing to do with the discussion being had.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
        No it was an on point reply based on your previous response, we can explain if you want to, what don't you understand?
  - s5300 5y ago
    Thank you for writing this out. It is correct & much better than the reply I was giving to him. As for the difference being subtle, I do not so much agree - but >accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Is most definitely key. It's too bad that people rarely care about this in any level of discussion or debate anymore. It may very well be one of the most major factors to collapse of modern civilization in the coming decades. For what it's worth - my opinion of Shapiro is that he is simply an opportunistic grifter, as are the vast majority of current U.S. "conservative think tanks/talking points creators/right wing/far-right wing" social media commentators. This is the reason they are all also trying to sell you one or more of their books that is most definitely not ghost written because these people are also so obviously such talented writers (hahaha I know /s on HN is frowned upon but I must have slight fun) Miller, on the other hand, is a fascist, and he's honestly never tried to hide it/is quite proud of it. Which, I guess you may be able to say, is at least somewhat commendable. Though, he too does engage in some opportunistic grifting, as do many on all vectors of politics.
- s5300 5y ago
  What? I simply do not understand how you came to this conclusion based on what was written, in the slightest. Unless English is not your first language, I'm genuinely worried for your comprehension and logical deduction skills. The parent to my post has quite clearly insinuated that "Ben Shapiro cannot be on the right wing of the US political spectrum because of the fact he is Jewish" I am giving an example of somebody, who is Jewish, and not just that they're Jewish, (i.e., not a first generational convert) but from a long line of all proudly Jewish ancestors, which moreso drives home the fact of the matter, that just because he is Jewish, does not mean that he cannot be on the right wing or "far right wing" of the political spectrum - something that he has legally & personally identified himself as for effectively his entire life. Furthermore, he's identified himself as a white supremacist since quite a young age, something many may seem as quite unusual given the circumstances of the Holocaust, and has went on to spend his political career pushing a fascist agenda, by any normal meaning of the word. I'm now quite tired, and that's not as well articulated as I'd like it to be - but I hope you can see the point to be that "just because you're Jewish does not mean you cannot be on the far-right," as we have very clear examples of this within the highest levels of our politics, with those being referred to proudly and consistently proclaiming their positions on the matter. I, personally however, think that you're just trying to troll on the internet and I'm wasting my time in attempting to engage with you in good faith.

by s5300 5y ago

BoardsOfCanada 5y ago

So Shapiro is (or could be) far-right because another Jew - Stephen Miller has an uncle who thought that if the immigration policy that Steven Miller champions had been implemented a hundred years ago, then their family would not have been able to migrate to the USA. So now we extrapolate a little according to the conclusion we want to reach and that's fascism - "authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy"

Mordisquitos 5y ago
The argument of the commenter you're replying to is not that "Shapiro is (or could be) far-right because [...]". Rather, the argument is "The argument that a Jewish person cannot be far-right is invalid because [...]". The difference is subtle, and of course the person you're answering may well consider Shapiro as being far-right, or even a literal fascist. And you both may disagree on the strict definitions of both terms but, either way, accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Case in point: 1. The article mentions Shapiro as being "right-wing". 2. Top-level comment first implies the article says Shapiro is "far-right", and then confounds the general concept of "far-right" with maybe Nazism or antisemitism in general to make their argument that him being Jewish makes it impossible that he is far-right. 3. A reply states that Jewish political figure Stephen Miller identified with white supremacy and fits the(ir) definition of a fascist, as a counterpoint to the previous argument. 4. You disagree with the argument that Shapiro is (or could be) far-right, because you disagree that Stephen Miller fits the strict definition of Fascism. ...and all this was originally triggered because the linked article said: «Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others.»
- growup12345 5y ago
  The really funny thing is that no one reads the article: >> Facebook’s reach statistics show that mainstream news content is far more common on Facebook than the far-right content Roose was featuring. And this reference to the content Roose is featuring is indeed: >> Journalist Kevin Roose began publishing a Twitter feed in July 2020 that showcased the 10 “top performing” links on Facebook as determined by Facebook’s Crowdtangle analytics tool. Most days, the “top performing” links come from right-wing commentators and provocateurs like Dan Bongino, Ben Shapiro, Fox News and others. So everyone’s carefully constructed contrived debate schematics topple.
  - s5300 5y ago
    >The really funny thing is that no one reads the article Not sure if you meant to reply to somebody else, but that has nothing to do with the discussion being had.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - BoardsOfCanada 5y ago
      No it was an on point reply based on your previous response, we can explain if you want to, what don't you understand?
- s5300 5y ago
  Thank you for writing this out. It is correct & much better than the reply I was giving to him. As for the difference being subtle, I do not so much agree - but >accurately representing other people's arguments is a key point of intellectually honest debate and assuming the best intentions. Is most definitely key. It's too bad that people rarely care about this in any level of discussion or debate anymore. It may very well be one of the most major factors to collapse of modern civilization in the coming decades. For what it's worth - my opinion of Shapiro is that he is simply an opportunistic grifter, as are the vast majority of current U.S. "conservative think tanks/talking points creators/right wing/far-right wing" social media commentators. This is the reason they are all also trying to sell you one or more of their books that is most definitely not ghost written because these people are also so obviously such talented writers (hahaha I know /s on HN is frowned upon but I must have slight fun) Miller, on the other hand, is a fascist, and he's honestly never tried to hide it/is quite proud of it. Which, I guess you may be able to say, is at least somewhat commendable. Though, he too does engage in some opportunistic grifting, as do many on all vectors of politics.
s5300 5y ago
What? I simply do not understand how you came to this conclusion based on what was written, in the slightest. Unless English is not your first language, I'm genuinely worried for your comprehension and logical deduction skills. The parent to my post has quite clearly insinuated that "Ben Shapiro cannot be on the right wing of the US political spectrum because of the fact he is Jewish" I am giving an example of somebody, who is Jewish, and not just that they're Jewish, (i.e., not a first generational convert) but from a long line of all proudly Jewish ancestors, which moreso drives home the fact of the matter, that just because he is Jewish, does not mean that he cannot be on the right wing or "far right wing" of the political spectrum - something that he has legally & personally identified himself as for effectively his entire life. Furthermore, he's identified himself as a white supremacist since quite a young age, something many may seem as quite unusual given the circumstances of the Holocaust, and has went on to spend his political career pushing a fascist agenda, by any normal meaning of the word. I'm now quite tired, and that's not as well articulated as I'd like it to be - but I hope you can see the point to be that "just because you're Jewish does not mean you cannot be on the far-right," as we have very clear examples of this within the highest levels of our politics, with those being referred to proudly and consistently proclaiming their positions on the matter. I, personally however, think that you're just trying to troll on the internet and I'm wasting my time in attempting to engage with you in good faith.