Really, where was that? They called it "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing", and weren't fired? Got any citation, because that ain't in this article. That would certainly make the studio hypocrites. It wouldn't mean anything for her, though, since studios are notoriously biased and treat employees unequally; I would not be at all shocked to hear they fired a woman for something that a bunch of guys also said.

Could we not cape for the antisemites?

Could we not treat being too vague about criticizing Israel as being intended to be antisemitic? That seems much more directly to be aiding the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, since, you know, that's literally what it is doing.

If she's said something else, that is actually antisemitic, then it becomes a very fair assumption that this was an antisemitic dogwhistle. Please, link to it! Otherwise, you're just using the worst-possible interpretation of what was said, sans any supporting evidence, to label her a bigot.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So basically find tweets and press statements I already referred to so that you can insist they aren't good enough.

I have thus far reiterated my original post because I understand you aren't the only one with reading comprehension issues.

But this is WHY dog whistles exist. They allow bad actors and useful idiots to insist nothing bad was said. And the idea that The Jews control the world's media is as old as the printing press

[–] t3rmit3 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are missing the point; yes, the point of a dogwhistle is to appear innocuous. Which is precisely why, sans supporting evidence, you cannot simply assume that innocuous speech is a dogwhistle. A term that only ever implies something bad isn't a dogwhistle. You have to have other patterns of behavior that back up interpreting the innocuous language as that... and you don't.

load more comments (1 replies)