[posting2fast]

> Do you typically use neo-Nazi slang in your everyday conversation to refer to people with a Jewish origin?

No, but one might refer to such slang, you just did it yourself, and nothing more can be seen in those particular tweets.

[travmatt]

To be perfectly clear and avoid the attempted reframing - he didn’t ‘refer to such slang’ at all. He used it directly, to convey the meaning it was created to convey. There was no sarcasm or levels of indirection. It was used exactly as its creators intended.

[posting2fast]

Attempted reframing? What are you trying to insinuate on my behalf? That slang is putting someone's name inside ((( and ))), not saying "the ((())) issue". It doesn't really work without anything in the brackets. I can't believe this even needs to be said, and if you are talking about something other than

> [2016-08-23 04:46:27] <WikiLeaks> But he’s jewish and engaged with the ((()))) issue.

then please provide a source to that other thing, who you are referring to with "he", and maybe a reason for not making what you are referring to more clear as well.

It's also very nice that because of the barrage of downvotes, or maybe moderator action, I can't respond 13 minutes after you posted your comment when I actually had finished this reply, but have to keep the tab open and submit later... so I'll respond to another comment here as well:

> Do you consider referring to racism to be the same as being racist?

No I don't, which was my point. Saying "$someone is Jewish and engaged with the ((())) issue" isn't using that dog whistle, but referring to it. Without context it's really hard to judge why the Jewishness is mentioned; I don't know what the ((())) issue refers to in that specific context, what "engaged with" means, nothing. Could easily be bad, could be benign, but the claim was they "used" ((())), and that's false. Even if they're actually antisemites, they did not use the brackets in that tweet from 2016-08-23 04:46:27. Fact.

I mean, calling him also a "rat" kind of makes it moot in a way, that's not good, antisemitism or not. But if they are antisemitic, I want more than hearsay and being sloppy about something like "referring to X" and "using X". This is not acceptable. For one because it would be important in light of WL, but even more importantly because of antisemitism.

Generally, that some antisemites might like WL would never surprise me. With almost anything that criticizes society and the powerful in it, you often can find antisemites who are superficially interested in the subject so they can re-route it to Jews being the root of all problems. So in a vacuum, tweets "at" WL that seem antisemitic are to be expected -- the question is how WL deals with them, and what they themselves put out. I do not consider that question settled, mind you, but those who raise it, and those who approach it, have no right to be this sloppy.

Remember when that Google guy was fired and people said he "posted a memo to the internet"? He posted a memo in an internal discussion group devoted to the issue he posted about, and others leaked it on the net. Yet the lie is still out there in people's heads. And that wouldn't be acceptable even if he was a total red pill chauvinist. When it was cool to be dishonest about Jews, to exclude them inevitably leading to violence against them, some people did that. Now it's cool to be dishonest about and violent to Jews in some milieus, sexists, racists or antisemites in others -- as if the methods don't matter at all, just who wins, as if using certain methods doesn't make you something, too. Or to put a very sharp point on it, as if putting racists into concentration camps would actually end once you killed all racists, as if it could.

[untog]

Do you consider referring to racism to be the same as being racist?