How do they find them?

[Bill the Cat]

"a bit over-the-top" is putting it mildly. It is nothing short of insane.

And?

The Koch brothers and the Mercers fund and support right wing political groups, do you apply the same opprobrium to them because of the causes they espouse?

one of the Koch Brothers is dead, so he isn't funding anything.

[Maranatha]

I would defy anyone to deny they have never [when hearing or reading of the behaviour or views of an individual or group] not have held views of that group or individual similar to those I have expressed towards Greene and those who think as she does.

Hands on bibles [or hearts] now...

I look at your words and attitude and I can testify I have never considered certain humans as sub human, worthy of the contempt that I read you bestowing upon people.

As I reminded you, thoughts and attitudes such as those have led to genocides.

That is what happens when you dehumanize a group or an individual.

[NorrinRadd]

Theologyweb is social media.

Wow, really? I seriously did not know discussion boards counted as "social media." Huh. So I've been doing social media since before the expression existed -- over 25 years.

[NorrinRadd]

Are we talking about the same interview? He did admit he helped.



Which was followed by the interviewer wondering how he dealt with the guilt of it. I think what Soros was saying is that since he didn't actually order it to occur, he felt no guilt because it would have happened whether he took part or not. It sounded sort of contradictory probably because of the language barrier.

Within the space of just a few sentences in that quote, he both admitted and denied that he helped.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

one of the Koch Brothers is dead, so he isn't funding anything.

Does that negate his and his brother's previous actions?

And why no condemnation of the Kochs or the Mercers for their political behind the scenes work?

Or might that be because they are of the Right?

[Whateverman]

Trump was NOT talking about illegal immigrants in general. He meant MS 13 specifically.

Prove it.

Drumpf wore a dog whistle around his neck when he first came down those pre-campaign steps, and he's been blowing it ever since. He routinely implies that immigrants are less than human beings by skirting around that opinion while rarely airing it openly. The MS-13 comment is perfectly consistent with his documented low opinion of people who look different than he does.

[Whateverman]

Wow, really? I seriously did not know discussion boards counted as "social media." Huh. So I've been doing social media since before the expression existed -- over 25 years.

Yeah, "social media" is any place on the internet where people gather to express their opinions/values. It's true that the term is most often used to refer to the big guys, like Facebook and Twitter, but it also encapsulates discussion forums, Reddit, etc.

[seanD]

"a bit over-the-top" is putting it mildly. It is nothing short of insane.

And?

The Koch brothers and the Mercers fund and support right wing political groups, do you apply the same opprobrium to them because of the causes they espouse?

Yup, Soros is the boogieman of the right, and Koch Bros are the boogiemen of the left. I'm highly suspicious of ANY wealthy elites funding influential political groups in America, no matter which side it affects, it's just that I don't recall Koch Bros being tied to groups that demand police be defunded, riots, burning down buildings, and shooting innocent children in the streets.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I look at your words and attitude and I can testify I have never considered certain humans as sub human, worthy of the contempt that I read you bestowing upon people.

I described her as a creature. However, I am not advocating her destruction. Furthermore, if your reference to genocide alludes to the Holocaust, just remember where the roots of Western anti-Semitism are to be found.

What is more interesting in all these affronted replies I have received is the avoidance of the serious question in this thread.

Namely, why do people still hold such views and why are those views so attractive to others?

I am also intrigued as to why those who have been so offended by my comments have singularly failed to comment upon the views and beliefs of Greene. If my remarks on a nonentity website's discussion board are so abhorrent why has no one here condemned Greene?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yup, Soros is the boogieman of the right, and Koch Bros are the boogiemen of the left. I'm highly suspicious of ANY wealthy elites funding influential political groups in America, no matter which side it affects, it's just that I don't recall Koch Bros being tied to groups that demand police be defunded, riots, burning down buildings, and shooting innocent children in the streets.

Your emotional outburst is duly noted.

However, I would suggest you do some reading on the activities of the Kochs and Mercers. You may find their activities to be far from inoffensive. From my reading the Kochs [at least in the past] appeared to be advocating a form of anarchy.

[Whateverman]

I described her as a creature.

All this hand-wringing about your "dehumanization" here is so disingenuous that I'm actually getting a little sick reading it.

Intentionally getting lost in the endless clutching of pearls is that large groups of people are routinely disparaged and insulted here, which is what dehumanization is. It's not like there's some significant difference between calling some group of people "animals" vs calling that same group "evil".

Jews were insulted by German citizens, too, but there's a notable absence of concern here when Democrats, atheists, socialists or liberals are insulted.

All this gnashing of teeth about you having dehumanized a particularly noisome group of people is dishonest. It appears to be yet-another example of right-wing conservatives espousing values that are only used to beat other people over the heads with, because those same people are mute when the group of people being targeted is on the approved list...

[Whateverman]

why do people still hold such views and why are those views so attractive to others?

I think the Q phenomenon is fed by several other cultural trends. Distrust of media/expertise, participation in the culture wars, the classic American propensity towards conspiracy theories, plain ol partisan politics - these things have combined into a perfect storm when it comes to Qanon...

[seanD]

Your emotional outburst is duly noted.

However, I would suggest you do some reading on the activities of the Kochs and Mercers. You may find their activities to be far from inoffensive. From my reading the Kochs [at least in the past] appeared to be advocating a form of anarchy.

Emotional outburst? lol. I was just stating a fact. Riots in the streets (which occurred right in front of my apartment a month or so ago) and Garcetti cutting LAPD budget to placate BLM demands to defund police directly affects me and my community. I don't know of any organizations Koch's are funding that directly affects me that way. Maybe they exist, I just don't know it.

[CivilDiscourse]

All this hand-wringing about your "dehumanization" here is so disingenuous that I'm actually getting a little sick reading it.

Intentionally getting lost in the endless clutching of pearls is that large groups of people are routinely disparaged and insulted here, which is what dehumanization is. It's not like there's some significant difference between calling some group of people "animals" vs calling that same group "evil".

Jews were insulted by German citizens, too, but there's a notable absence of concern here when Democrats, atheists, socialists or liberals are insulted.

All this gnashing of teeth about you having dehumanized a particularly noisome group of people is dishonest. It appears to be yet-another example of right-wing conservatives espousing values that are only used to beat other people over the heads with, because those same people are mute when the group of people being targeted is on the approved list...

"I claim the speaker is disingenuous, so the points can be safely ignored, regardless of whether the points are true or not".

[seanD]

I don’t get why conservatives talk about him that much. He is a rich business man, who uses his money in liberal lobbyism.

But the way I see people on Facebook and other places talk of him is honestly disturbing.



Ah, so you have indeed stopped beating your wife? In general I think you are making far too much out of a minor quote. That is why I asked for corroborating evidence because I am not seeing what you are seeing. There is way too much wriggle room in the interpretations.

Since biases are on display here I prefer the more benign interpretation.



If you are going to insist on precision of language, then I will have to insist that you don’t shift the terms as you do in other posts, but stick to the terms as they were used. At no point in the interview does the interviewer use the term collaborate. You know that, so you shouldn’t say that he had said yes to whether he collaborated.

He said yes to whether he went out and helped. And the range of a yes to that is much greater. The former far more strongly implies an active part, than him just following along and having little say in what is done.

I’d even go so far as to say that his answer is consistent with him merely following along those groups and doing little except fetching coffee.

There just isn’t enough here.



I think this is quite a stretch. The interpretation I suggest, that the interviewer asked a loaded question, Soros hesitatingly answered it and later clarified his answer is more parsinimous.

You also have the problem that if you believe Soros command of English is poor, then you have to deal with the complexity of whether he understood the questions as you do.



Because he lied about being a Jew, and took a position that while clever was separate from other Jews? Who knows? It’s a fascinating part of his character. And considering what was going on I consider it highly shameful of conservatives to use it to character assasinate him.

I honestly consider that despicable, even if (as you claim) he was actively helping them take possession of Jewish items. This is not a situation I believe we have the right to judge him for, or to use in political propaganda against him.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Nonetheless, this just discredits the article in the OP in my eyes. They weren't concerned about such details that were involved, they just dismissed it as a conspiracy theory because I'm sure they were hoping their readers were unfamiliar with this part of Soros' history. In fact, I'm sure the OP herself was unfamiliar with that history until it was brought here in discussion. Since the article is discredited as being deceptive and disingenuous, I can't take anything else it describes about Marjorie Taylor Greene as being accurate or honest.