But I don't see how that has anything to do with a private, non-government advocacy group making their feelings known to advertisers. It happens all the time
It might be perfectly fine, but why should the target of this campaign- also a private entity- refrain from denouncing this and retaliating with bad publicity for the involved advocacy group? Twitter/ X lives off ad revenue, and the ADL lives off its reputation of a non-partisan organisation pursuing a laudable cause. If ADL can erode X's advertising revenue, I don't see why X shouldn't fight back by trying to weaken the ADL's reputation, as long as it is done in the open and by legal means.
It's a bit of a high-risk strategy, isn't it? If one accuses the ADL of saying untrue harmful things about them and those things turn out to be true, then not only is one now carrying the initial bad actions on one's reputation, but one now has the added reputation of trying to legally bury knowledge of those actions. Not a great look.
Yes, but it works also the other way around. If the ADL accuses one of doing something nefarious and then it turns out not to be true, their reputation is also compromised. The ADL must accept that there is a risk in moving its accusations, otherwise they would have no accountability.
And even assuming that from a risk standpoint X should rather comply to whatever the ADL demands; what is the effect of companies never fighting back purely because of risk aversion? Wouldn't this end up making the activist organisation less accountable and even encourage further demands?
But X would need to prove that the ADL made defamatory statements - presumably in private to said advertisers, because Elon's contention is that he's "heard from advertisers" about it. Then X would need to prove that those statements were false, and then prove that they financially harmed X. I'm dubious that X wants to, or can, do that. If Musk wants to go on a crusade to test whether the ADL makes up lies about antisemitism out of left-wing partisan hate for him personally (and if he really believes that), then fine, try to hold the ADL accountable. Why not? But the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization as the source of his financial woes is simply a dog whistle to his increasingly radical rightwing fan base.
Of course if they went to court, X would have to prove what they claim. And ADL would probably have to do the same. It's the normal course of things between private entities.
In the meantime, the ADL has already threatened X with reputational damage, and now Musk is doing the same with the ADL- by spreading the idea that their motives are not necessarily laudable. I see a perfect symmetry in the situation.
the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization...
Basically what you're saying here is that your judgement of the situation is biased by the fact that the ADL is a Jewish organisation. Should Jewish organisations not be engaged directly or asked to be accountable for their actions?
The poster is clearly saying that Elon is full of shit and chose a Jewish org as a dog whistle to his fanbase, it's beyond my understanding how you came to the conclusion that the poster meant that jewish organizations are beyond accountability...
Note that the ADL is not the first organisation singled out by Musk: a month ago X filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-Jewish organisation. So the argument that he chose a Jewish org is weaker given it's not the only one or the first one.
As for the accountability, it seems obvious to me that if accusing a Jewish organisation of wrongdoing automatically exposes you to such a terrible suspicion as that of making antisemitic dogwhistles, then these organisations get free rein to say whatever they want because even challenging them produces an unacceptable reputational damage.
It's besides the point because Musk's targeting of the ADL occurs while he also boosts anti-semitism on his platform.
As for the accountability, it seems obvious to me that if accusing a Jewish organisation of wrongdoing automatically exposes you to such a terrible suspicion as that of making antisemitic dogwhistles, then these organisations get free rein to say whatever they want because even challenging them produces an unacceptable reputational damage.
I'm not sure how they are any less accountable than he is. If he wants to sue them, he can. There is nothing stopping that because the ADL is a Jewish organization. What accountability do you think there is aside from that? The ADL can't force anything to happen, they can just advocate for their side as he does.
You are being purposefully obtuse. Musk isn't being called an antisemite because he's singled-out the ADL, it's because he's amplified antisemitism and doesn't seem to care about it.
Not sure that it was the only interaction- but the Keith Woods' tweet was a link to an article critical of the ADL written by a renowned Jewish scholar, Norman Finkelstein. What is important, who tweets the link, or the link's contents?
Let's just also stipulate that Norman Finkelstein is not a renowned Jewish scholar. He is a profound antisemite whose Jewish ethnicity makes him a favorite prop for neo-nazis to trot out.
Both. While avoidance of ad hominem is a useful rule for sophists using argumentation as an intellectual game or to better their ability to argue in a Greek court of law, in the modern world there is content of the topic but also, very much, the reason a particular channel chose to share it and the reason a particular influential individual chose to reshare it. Even in our modern law courts, it is germane to question not just the testimony of a witness but the character of said witness.
The critique in the article can be considered on its own. The fact that it comes to us via Elon Musk resharing Keith Woods, and not as an original link from Musk, tells us volumes about how Musk is willing to be publicly portrayed and who he appears to be listening to, which are also relevant information for the topic at hand.
Comments
It might be perfectly fine, but why should the target of this campaign- also a private entity- refrain from denouncing this and retaliating with bad publicity for the involved advocacy group? Twitter/ X lives off ad revenue, and the ADL lives off its reputation of a non-partisan organisation pursuing a laudable cause. If ADL can erode X's advertising revenue, I don't see why X shouldn't fight back by trying to weaken the ADL's reputation, as long as it is done in the open and by legal means.
It's a bit of a high-risk strategy, isn't it? If one accuses the ADL of saying untrue harmful things about them and those things turn out to be true, then not only is one now carrying the initial bad actions on one's reputation, but one now has the added reputation of trying to legally bury knowledge of those actions. Not a great look.
Yes, but it works also the other way around. If the ADL accuses one of doing something nefarious and then it turns out not to be true, their reputation is also compromised. The ADL must accept that there is a risk in moving its accusations, otherwise they would have no accountability.
And even assuming that from a risk standpoint X should rather comply to whatever the ADL demands; what is the effect of companies never fighting back purely because of risk aversion? Wouldn't this end up making the activist organisation less accountable and even encourage further demands?
But X would need to prove that the ADL made defamatory statements - presumably in private to said advertisers, because Elon's contention is that he's "heard from advertisers" about it. Then X would need to prove that those statements were false, and then prove that they financially harmed X. I'm dubious that X wants to, or can, do that. If Musk wants to go on a crusade to test whether the ADL makes up lies about antisemitism out of left-wing partisan hate for him personally (and if he really believes that), then fine, try to hold the ADL accountable. Why not? But the reason I quoted Sartre in that post is that I believe there is no sincerity to this. Selecting a Jewish organization as the source of his financial woes is simply a dog whistle to his increasingly radical rightwing fan base.
Of course if they went to court, X would have to prove what they claim. And ADL would probably have to do the same. It's the normal course of things between private entities.
In the meantime, the ADL has already threatened X with reputational damage, and now Musk is doing the same with the ADL- by spreading the idea that their motives are not necessarily laudable. I see a perfect symmetry in the situation.
Basically what you're saying here is that your judgement of the situation is biased by the fact that the ADL is a Jewish organisation. Should Jewish organisations not be engaged directly or asked to be accountable for their actions?
The poster is clearly saying that Elon is full of shit and chose a Jewish org as a dog whistle to his fanbase, it's beyond my understanding how you came to the conclusion that the poster meant that jewish organizations are beyond accountability...
Note that the ADL is not the first organisation singled out by Musk: a month ago X filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a non-Jewish organisation. So the argument that he chose a Jewish org is weaker given it's not the only one or the first one.
As for the accountability, it seems obvious to me that if accusing a Jewish organisation of wrongdoing automatically exposes you to such a terrible suspicion as that of making antisemitic dogwhistles, then these organisations get free rein to say whatever they want because even challenging them produces an unacceptable reputational damage.
It's besides the point because Musk's targeting of the ADL occurs while he also boosts anti-semitism on his platform.
I'm not sure how they are any less accountable than he is. If he wants to sue them, he can. There is nothing stopping that because the ADL is a Jewish organization. What accountability do you think there is aside from that? The ADL can't force anything to happen, they can just advocate for their side as he does.
You are being purposefully obtuse. Musk isn't being called an antisemite because he's singled-out the ADL, it's because he's amplified antisemitism and doesn't seem to care about it.
Regardless of what you think about ADL, he is now retweeting white nationalists like Keith Woods.
Not sure that it was the only interaction- but the Keith Woods' tweet was a link to an article critical of the ADL written by a renowned Jewish scholar, Norman Finkelstein. What is important, who tweets the link, or the link's contents?
Let's just also stipulate that Norman Finkelstein is not a renowned Jewish scholar. He is a profound antisemite whose Jewish ethnicity makes him a favorite prop for neo-nazis to trot out.
Both. While avoidance of ad hominem is a useful rule for sophists using argumentation as an intellectual game or to better their ability to argue in a Greek court of law, in the modern world there is content of the topic but also, very much, the reason a particular channel chose to share it and the reason a particular influential individual chose to reshare it. Even in our modern law courts, it is germane to question not just the testimony of a witness but the character of said witness.
The critique in the article can be considered on its own. The fact that it comes to us via Elon Musk resharing Keith Woods, and not as an original link from Musk, tells us volumes about how Musk is willing to be publicly portrayed and who he appears to be listening to, which are also relevant information for the topic at hand.