Would a resolution condemning bigotry against blacks, Muslims, or homosexuals had been watered down?

[theboss]

Would a resolution against any of those specific bigotries become a giant catch-all condemnation of everything bad in the world?

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Watered down?

Should the resolution been parsed down to just anti-Semitism, followed by individual resolutions for racism, sexism, homophobia?

[theboss]

5. The resolution should have been about the repeated anti-Semitic musings of one Congresswoman

If they wanted a catch-all resolution after that so be it.

[theophilus]

9. Is calling the Congresswoman an Anti-Semite considered bashing? Asking for an acquaintance. n/t

[Codeine]

10. The musings of said congresswoman

were characterized as such, not the congresswoman; this distinction should not be disregarded.

[theophilus]

11. A fine distinction and a window into word craft. Lucky for many here. n/t

[Codeine]

12. I am amused at the level of concern

displayed toward characterizations of a public figure vs the lack of concern (even defense) displayed toward the bigoted language of that public figure.

A window into the inner working of some posters.

[theboss]

13. Thankfully, anti-semitic musings by public figures rarely lead to trouble

Historically, it's a pretty benign thing to do. Right?

[tonedevil]

2. Are you saying...

these groups you delineate are given greater privilege in modern US than Jewish People? As long as we are indulging in rank speculation I most certainly do think that any message condemning poor treatment or hateful language toward any marginalized group in the US is subject to being water down. If you don't maybe you aren't paying enough attention.

[manor321]

3. To me it seems like some want Omar out of Congress because she is Muslim.

That's what it seems like to me.

And they will continue raging until she's out.

[theboss]

6. "She's not the bigot! You're the bigot!"

Got it.

[LanternWaste]

7. That is rather simplistic.

I'm sure you much more complex than distilling nuance and context down to merely two options. Or, maybe your current narrative denies you the choice/ability to do so.

Either way, I doubt you'll rationalize your bumper sticker for what it is-- a simplistic bumper sticker which means very little, if not anything at all.

[theboss]

8. No. Nuance doesn't work here

We nuance ourselves into nothingness.

[SWBTATTReg]

4. Probably. The repugs would yell and scream that we don't need such a resolution at all (like ...

they do continually with anything gay-related (protection wise)). As usual, they'll insist that there is nothing wrong today. Which of course is the furthest thing from the truth that you can get. Discrimination is still happening, voter and election fraud is still happening, and the republican ostriches still have their heads buried in the sand.

I am constantly surprised by the fact that people can even say the word 'gay' today. Thirty years ago being gay was never discussed/mentioned (heaven forbid!).

You kind of make a point in one way, IMHO, in that I suspect that bigotry of today seems cause other negative
things going on in the world, e.g., voter suppression, income inequality or suppression, civil rights suppression, etc., all usually directed in some manner towards suppressing minorities or lower income classes, and maintaining artificially high barriers.

Even today, you still see pockets of existing bigotry and hatred towards anything different, gay, black, foreign, muslins, anything different. People will always beat the drums of hate in order to get attention though, for they truly don't have anything other messages to offer. We need to ignore these continued calls of hate, bigotry, doom and gloom and carry on forward, for the good of all, our scientific advances and greater challenges to come in the future.