I asked this question to find out if (in a specific instance of) antisemitic affiliations within the Democratic Party have, there have been any apologies issued.

A number of users (Alexander O'Mara, Christian, Drunk Cynic, PoloHoleSet, Joe C) have voted to close the question. To be fair, 2 of the users (Christian and Drunk Cynic) left comments stating why they thought the question could be improved. Although that doesn't justify closing the question as "off topic", it does show that their intentions may be to improve the quality of the content on the site.

However, what about the others? Whether they are trying to steer attention away from something which may embarrass the party they root for or whether they are, themselves, supportive of the antisemitism and want it to remain unaddressed, should we not expect some actions to be taken by the moderators in light of the "No Bigotry" policy?

EDIT: if this question would be better asked on meta.stackexchange.com, please, let me know. I guess I can also posit a direct question to stackexchange.com/about/contact about how they want to treat whitewashing of antisemitism on their site.

  • 3
    I didn't vote to close originally as it was closed already, but did downvote. However, after the edits the question is significantly better and voted to reopen and converted the downvote to an upvote. Note that this is the system working well! Questions aren't "closed", they're put "on hold" with guidance on how to improve it; subtle but important difference! Ideally, a great many questions put "on hold" will be improved, reopened, and answered. – user11249 Jan 22 '19 at 5:54
  • 3
    That being said, I think the accusations of anti-Semitic sympathies in this meta question are unbecoming, and have downvoted this meta Q for that. – user11249 Jan 22 '19 at 5:54
  • @Martin Tournoij, whitewashing is not necessarily motivated by sympathies. It could be simply "what's the big deal?" attitude. Dismissiveness towards irresponsible behavior by a major (in some way ruling) party is a step towards normalizing that behavior though. – grovkin Jan 22 '19 at 16:01

It looks to me like your were using your "question" as a soapbox to declare to the world that the Women's March is Anti-Semitic. The fact that you technically formatted it in the form of a question looks like little more than a formality.

Questions like that are totally fair game to be closed as "Unclear what you're asking", which is the close reason which absorbed the old "not a real Question" close reason.

  • I am taking their antisemitic affiliation for granted. I haven't declared them as such. The news reports (some of which I referenced) have reported their antisemitic affiliations. I am not the one making a judgement on facts here. I referenced the facts reported by others. I based my question on this reference. I can't just ask a question without any context. Without context the question would be just one sentence -- the last one. – grovkin Jan 23 '19 at 14:34
  • 2
    @grovkin Perhaps if you included something in your question to convince us that your goal is to learn about politician's apologies, your question would be more well received. Giving us a reason why you're interested specifically in apologies might help – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jan 23 '19 at 18:30
  • 1
    @grovkin with that being said, it does have to be convincing. If it looks like you're just making a reason up as a formality, it might not work. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jan 23 '19 at 18:33
  • I gave a reason in my original formulation. My reason was that I (and just about everyone) would expect such an apology if a group promoted by the Republican Party was affiliated with David Duke (a former clansman who was politically active in the 90s). While some people thought the analogy was informative. Others did not. So I removed it. If I over-explain, my explanation is too unrelated. If I under-explain, my explanation is concocted. This does make me think that they would rather the question wasn't asked (even if it's to find out that which the question queried). – grovkin Jan 23 '19 at 22:12
  • That having been said, since when do we demand that all questions have reasons for being asked? Isn't the fact that I didn't know the answer, and I wanted to find out the answer, reason enough? Why do I have to jump through all these hoops while asking perfectly reasonable questions which some perceive as counter-revolutionary questions? This isn't the first time it happened. Every time I ask a question which can even potentially paint Trump's opposition in a bad light, it gets put through the wringer. – grovkin Jan 23 '19 at 22:36
  • @grovkin If it is your goal to paint anyone in any kind of light, that's probably a sign that it's not really about the question. – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Jan 23 '19 at 22:59
  • what if it's my goal to find out if they can be painted in that light based on what happened and I just want to know what happened? – grovkin Jan 23 '19 at 23:03
  • If my inquiry is in earnest, it's a question. The exclusion of questions, which promote a point of view, is there to exclude rants. Attempts to find out what happened are not rants. They are genuine inquiry. The fact that some people would rather this was swept under the rug doesn't make this a non-question. It's still a question. And it is the people who are trying to sweep it under the rug who are pushing an agenda. – grovkin Jan 23 '19 at 23:06

I don't really see the connection between remarks made in private by organisers of an event and the event itself. Endorsing an event does not mean you endorse everything its organisers have said.

To blame the Democrats (see quote from your question below) for that is going a bit far and I agree that it looks as though it's not a good-faith effort.

So, in my opinion, the same standard is applicable to any mainstream Democrat politician who has been formerly associated with a movement which has close ties to "The Nation of Islam."

To make the comparison with David Duke of the KKK also doesn't hold. The women's march is not primarily about promoting antisemitic views whereas the KKK is a white supremacist organisation.

  • The Democratic party thinks that the organizers went too far. The Democratic party withdrew its endorsement (2nd link in the question). So if you don't think this is warranted, you may want to let them know. But given that they think withdrawing their endorsement was warranted, it's reasonable to ask if they apologized for having endorsed it. I am not inventing reasons here. Their own reasoning shows that this is what they thought appropriate. The only question was whether they wanted to keep it quite or not. – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 21:14
  • @grovkin I cannot speak for any party. I can only say that I would see the two separately. It seem reasonable to endorse the march but not the remarks you mention. As for your question, it would be more neutral to ask if any politician had spoken out against these specific remarks and or the march itself without the rant about the KKK. – JJJ Mod Jan 21 '19 at 21:19
  • I didn't rant about KKK. I put "The Nation of Islam" affiliation in perspective. It's openly homophobic and antisemitic. – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 21:21
  • @grovkin I see, I hadn't heard of them before. Well, I read it in your question, but didn't know what they were. As for my point about separating the two, that's still how I see it. The march, to the best of my knowledge, is a feminist movement, not some extremist thing. – JJJ Mod Jan 21 '19 at 21:25
  • It's one think that they are. But many news sources (some of which I linked in the question) show that the organizers of the march also make light of antisemitism. And by endorsing the march (even for a time), the Democratic party helped to attract attention to them and helped them to fund-raise. This attributed to normalizing antisemitism. I can't believe I have to argue that this merits an apology. – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 21:28
  • @grovkin what I read from your linked article is 'before its first march'. To put so much weight on that to me seems more like character assassination: trying to discredit the whole march for something someone may have done some time in the past. I'm not saying it looks good, but saying it leads to "normalizing antisemitism" seems a bit far-fetched. I bet many people (myself included) didn't even know this was related to the march. – JJJ Mod Jan 21 '19 at 21:33
  • You are disputing facts which, at the moment, are not in dispute. The Democratic Party did disassociate. The march organizers did admit to "The Nation of Islam" ties. If you are not aware of the facts of the story, you can read more through the links and do some googling on your own. But I don't want to use this space to litigate these facts. They are not in dispute. This meta question is not about these facts. It's about the behavior of the users who closed the question. – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 21:39
  • 1
    @grovkin that's not what your article says, last part: The Women’s March told the publication that it has “no relationship with or financial ties to the Nation of Islam," adding that "we denounce anti-Semitism, and there should be no confusion about that.” – JJJ Mod Jan 21 '19 at 21:43
  • When pressed to confirm whether the DNC had been partnering with the organization for this year's march, and if it was no longer, a DNC official declined to comment further. Leaders of the Women's March, the national group that's organizing Saturday's event, have been criticized for their association with the Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan, who has led the black nationalist group since 1977, is known for hyperbolic hate speech aimed at the Jewish community, and made remarks such as "the powerful Jews are my enemy" last February. --CNN – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 21:46
  • But I have to ask again, please, do not use this space to litigate the facts of the question. Please, limit the meta site's answers/comments to the question asked on the meta site and not the question it discusses. – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 21:48
  • 5
    @grovkin does my answer not answer your question? They closed because they though it wasn't a good-faith effort. And now you're accusing them of "whitewashing of antisemitism" (per the edit to your question)? I think that goes a bit far and to me that doesn't seem like a good-faith effort either. – JJJ Mod Jan 21 '19 at 21:56
  • Well, if they are trying to divert attention from the fact that someone owes an apology, why isn't that whitewashing whatever it is the apology is owed for? They also didn't leave a comment. So I don't think it was good-faith vote. – grovkin Jan 21 '19 at 22:10

I didn't see any whitewashing of antisemitism in the comments. But there are a lot of comments (maybe some were also already deleted), so if you think that there is whitewashing, it would help if you could point out specific comments that you think are in violation of the policy, because those should indeed be addressed.

If you haven't yet, I would also suggest to flag the comments and use the "contact us" form to report the malicious content.

At a minimum, this should result in the deletion of the comment, likely a warning, and possibly a temporary or even lifetime ban, depending on the severity of the violation.

As you specifically called out close voters by name: Close votes are never a violation of the CoC. With no comments, you can't possibly know their exact reasoning, and assuming malicious intent from a vote isn't fair, and definitely cannot be punished using the CoC.

What I do see in the comments are objections to the false comparison you originally made, and doubts about your claims in the question (which I would both share; the original comparison was obviously invalid, and the remaining claim about exclusion of Jews is not mentioned by the linked source; feeling unwelcome because of implicit or explicit antisemitism is in my opinion no better than being actively excluded, and the problem needs to be addressed (which is now apparently finally happening), but it's not exactly the same as being actively excluded).

  • I didn't claim that any whitewashing of antisemitism happened in the comments. Please, do not attribute to me opinions which I didn't express. The claim about being excluded because of "Zionist" views is the whole premise of the linked article. I don't know how you missed it. As for the analogy made, it wasn't a false analogy. It was apropos. But it seems that many people do have difficulties understanding analogies. So I removed it to avoid confusion. – grovkin Jan 22 '19 at 15:54
  • 2
    @grovkin You brought up the Be nice policy / CoC, so I assumed it must probably (also) be because of comments. But I also addressed your specific questions about the code and votes. I understand analogies, and I would assume most that complained do so as well, yours just wasn't a very fitting one, and at least put the question closer to off-topic territory. – tim Jan 22 '19 at 17:14
  • If the premise of the article is that Jews were actively excluded (for their views or for other reasons), then it's an unstated one. I read the article (twice now), and that's never directly stated; instead, it's about the author not feeling welcome. Some quotes: "I would like to feel there is a place for me [...] I am not certain there is", "This [...] can alienate feminists, like myself". Nowhere does the author say that Jews were explicitely excluded for any reason (as it eg happened with the Chicago dyke march). What she does say is that she feels like there is no place for her. – tim Jan 22 '19 at 17:18
  • So you think there is nothing about closing that question without as much as a comment (which is what 3 of the users who voted to close did) that should make any Jewish person feel like antisemitism is being treated lightly? It was a question about a main political party promoting an organization with antisemitic ties and how that political party dealt with the fall out. Closing such a question without a comment, because it was presumably not about politics or government, should not make anyone think like the reason for closure was not dismissiveness toward antisemitism? BS. – grovkin Jan 22 '19 at 17:30
  • 2
    @grovkin I honestly think that the question wasn't great, and I hope that the invalid comparison was what lead to the close votes (because it didn't seem to be asked in good faith), not a dismissiveness toward antisemitism. But that's the important point. All we can do based on close votes is assume (and hope). We can't really do anything else. I think mods here are way too hands-off regarding the CoC, but a vote is just not enough to go on to demand any mod action. – tim Jan 22 '19 at 17:48
  • 2
    I also still think that the question is leading, and that that may have lead to the bad reception. There are a number of questions which should maybe be answered first, such as "Did the womens march exclude Jews from participating?" (I don't think so), "How important were the womens march leaders for the organization of the march" (you make it seem like it was a top-down approach, while I always assumed that the organizers mostly applied for permits etc, but that it was otherwise an organic grassroots movement and that the leaders didn't matter that much; but I may well be wrong though) – tim Jan 22 '19 at 18:08
  • 1
    "Did any of the antisemitic ideology of the leaders influence the political alignment of the march?" (you seem to imply that the womens march itself was antisemitic; that may well be, but I always assumed that it was at least a couple of degrees of separation) – tim Jan 22 '19 at 18:08
  • Please, address what I said and not what I "seem to imply." – grovkin Jan 23 '19 at 17:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .