4 ms·
> The board’s five Jewish members — Peskin, Ronen, Melgar, Preston and Rafael Mandelman — in October received antisemitic postcards at their homes. Peskin said
by 015a 3y ago
> The board’s five Jewish members — Peskin, Ronen, Melgar, Preston and Rafael Mandelman — in October received antisemitic postcards at their homes. Peskin said multiple supervisors have received as many as four more antisemitic letters or postcards since then.
Is this recent incident with Garry connected at all with the antisemetic postcards delivered last year? I haven't been following this and thus don't know what Garry's issue with the supervisors is.
If not: This is scummy writing to connect his admittedly poor-taste comments to something worse.
- soneca 3y agoDid you stop reading there? It later explains that it has same wording of ”not a threat” used in the letter with Tan’s face. This is how it connects
- 015a 3y agoI did not stop reading. The antisemetic postcards from October are different than the ones the supervisors received with Garry's face and the "this is not a threat" line. Its not clear to me that the ones with Garry's face are anti-semetic; unless they are, due to the nature of his extreme concern with the supervisory board, and that's what I'm trying to zero-in on. Its also naturally possible that the motivations of Garry and the person who sent the postcard are different, but again: I think its scummy to then prescribe antisemetic intent to Garry by connecting the two without elaborating within-the-article on why Garry is so drunkenly distraught. I am not justifying or trivializing how Garry behaved. Its not ok to say what he said. But, its possible for both sides of this to be scummy and horrible; and that possibility is what I want to understand better.
- soneca 3y agoI think you are too eager to decide that the article is scummy. For me, those two paragraphs do not say that Tan was antisemetic in any form. It says that i) some of the same people received an antisemitic hate letters before ii) those antisemetic letters used the same wording than the ones sent using Tan’s face The only implication that I see is that they were likely sent by the same person/group. I see this is very clear in the writing as it is. Zero scummyness in it. And, this connection, in my opinion, very much justifies including the antisemetic letters in the article. It seems a very relevant information.
- 015a 3y agoI would argue that Garry's motivation and intent is extremely relevant to this topic of conversation; possibly the most relevant thing. The article omitting this is absolutely scummy, because it fills that omission with connections to antisemetism, and then goes on to speak on how "powerful people need to be held accountable" (absolutely true). Yes, "for you" and clearly, for me, I did not draw the conclusion that Garry's motivations were antisemetic. That's not the point. Journalists publish articles for an extremely broad audience, and there's a high degree of responsibility and ethics required of the author while publishing; a degree that, to be clear, I do not feel this author met.
- salynchnew 3y agoIt's related in the sense that it's part of a recent pattern of harassment against a similar set of local public officials. It's newsworthy as part of a trend. Analogous is any other news story that points out any other recent trend. For example, there is a similar NYT article today about increases in train derailments and accidents since last year. The story mentions East Palestine, OH Norfolk Southern derailment. While they're not blaming Norfolk Southern for the broader increase in accidents, it's something that readers have ALSO heard about that was very prominently in the news and helps ground the trend in a noteworthy example.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoWhat does being Jewish have to do with any of this and why was it brought up in the article? Being Jewish isn’t some sort of shield that gives you special rights over anyone else.
- mlyle 3y agoBecause if you write something that gives nazis glee and they weaponize it against their Jewish opponents, it should give you pause. It was brought up because they are receiving explicitly antisemitic content from the same people who loved and weaponized Tan's tweet.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoWhy is this consideration not given to any other religion?
- mlyle 3y agoI would give this consideration to anyone who is receiving borderline threatening, discriminatory language from an upset mob. A better question to ask yourself is why Jewish people seem to continually end up in this situation: on the receiving end of antisemitic abuse. Political stuff pisses people off, but people who are pissed at Jew can always just trot out the antisemitic and dehumanizing statements... Such threatening comments have proved credible enough of the time to make the person on the receiving end really second guess about their safety.
- smolder 3y agoIt simply says the Jewish members received antisemitic letters. Those things are related.
- whatwhaaaaat 3y agoBut is it related to tangs tweet? Prove that it is. Not just well this public figure got hate mail and also this tech ceo sent a mean tweet.