What is the nuance you see between these two statements:
“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” Kennedy said. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” -rfk jr
RFK Jr. says COVID was ‘ethnically targeted’ to spare Jews -NYPost Headline
Obviously the headline is his statement boiled down to its most “triggering” elements, but he did basically say that imo.
One is a suggestion, a line of inquiry. The other is a definitive statement. The headline does the latter, but the body repeatedly does the former twice right in the opening:
claiming the bug was a genetically engineered bioweapon that may have been “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.
Kennedy floated the idea
The thing about "antisemitism" is that its loudest opponents are always the most deliberate liars. They have to be, because their schtick requires that any opposition to any bad behavior by any Jew, or to any special treatment of any Jew, is to be treated like genocide.
The key word here is "deliberate." In any other hit piece, the writer might just be a retard. But when it comes to antisemitism, that need to exaggerate harm to comical levels means that there's no room for the benefit of the doubt. The whole thing is already an act, so you can't treat any part of the smear as incidental.
I agree with basically everything you laid out, but the media taking what someone said and twisting it into the least generous interpretation is part and parcel to the present media environment imo. It definitely gets cranked up to 11 for chosenites (see Roseanne’s most recent kerfuffle) - but I think it’s more common than just them.
Edit - just think of that retarded “I’d like to amend my statement from colored people to people of color” - “I DEMAND THAT DIRECT RACIST ATTACK AGAINST MYSELF AND MY PEOPLE BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD!!!”, or calling Kennedy “anti-vax”, etc etc
What is the nuance you see between these two statements:
Obviously the headline is his statement boiled down to its most “triggering” elements, but he did basically say that imo.
One is a suggestion, a line of inquiry. The other is a definitive statement. The headline does the latter, but the body repeatedly does the former twice right in the opening:
The thing about "antisemitism" is that its loudest opponents are always the most deliberate liars. They have to be, because their schtick requires that any opposition to any bad behavior by any Jew, or to any special treatment of any Jew, is to be treated like genocide.
The key word here is "deliberate." In any other hit piece, the writer might just be a retard. But when it comes to antisemitism, that need to exaggerate harm to comical levels means that there's no room for the benefit of the doubt. The whole thing is already an act, so you can't treat any part of the smear as incidental.
I agree with basically everything you laid out, but the media taking what someone said and twisting it into the least generous interpretation is part and parcel to the present media environment imo. It definitely gets cranked up to 11 for chosenites (see Roseanne’s most recent kerfuffle) - but I think it’s more common than just them.
Edit - just think of that retarded “I’d like to amend my statement from colored people to people of color” - “I DEMAND THAT DIRECT RACIST ATTACK AGAINST MYSELF AND MY PEOPLE BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD!!!”, or calling Kennedy “anti-vax”, etc etc