Fears for ‘security of Jews worldwide’ in wake of Elon Musk AfD speech
-
W [email protected] shared this topic
-
-
-
-
Yeah but this is more profitable. Remember, the major news orgs like Fox News are controlled by Rupert Murdoch. He benefits from this.
-
So do many people. We need a strong popular resistance against these Nazis.
-
Historically, Jews have almost always been 'others'.
-
-
-
-
-
Yes. Your point?
-
I immediately noticed it, but only saw today that it isn't photoshopped but just a coincidence.
-
Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, called the remarks “incredibly dangerous,”
I wonder when they're going to come out and call her and extreme-leftist when she's spouting such antisemitic rhetoric. After all the l"eading anti-hate organization in the world," the Anti-Defemation League, was quick to point out that Musk is just "overly enthusiastic."
-
it’s the job of the press to tell us what we’re seeing and why
That's a pretty dangerous way to approach other people. Journalists are just as capable of error or corruption as everyone else.
-
Reality is always going to be less profitable.
Traditional journalism is dead. It doesn't pay nearly enough to survive these days, not to mention the stress from being attacked by politicians and their followers.
Can it change? Yes. But that means taking down the oligarchy and capitalism.
-
"Antisemitic rhetoric" should be in quotes too, if you were going for sarcasm. I hope you were going for sarcasm
-
When I was much younger, I thought the ADL had my back. Then I found out that since I don't support Israel, they don't give a shit about me.
Now there is no one who has my back.
-
Yeah, I'm not technically a jew (paternal grandfather), but I have the nose, so I have to be a little careful.
-
Of course they’re capable of error and corruption, every human being is. That’s why they ideally need institutions behind them to protect them and ensure they’re only reporting the truth. The point of a free press is to describe events as they happened and provide context, which serves as the first draft of history. They’ll certainly make errors here and there, but as long as they accurately describe reality, offer explanations based on history and uncompromising contemporary interviews, as well as promptly correct any mistakes with humility, then they’ve done their job. I don’t see how that’s the least bit dangerous.
