zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
> The board’s five Jewish members — Peskin, Ronen, Melgar, Preston and Rafael Mandelman — in October received antisemitic postcards at their homes. Peskin said multiple supervisors have received as many as four more antisemitic letters or postcards since then.

Is this recent incident with Garry connected at all with the antisemetic postcards delivered last year? I haven't been following this and thus don't know what Garry's issue with the supervisors is.

If not: This is scummy writing to connect his admittedly poor-taste comments to something worse.

>>015a+N5
Did you stop reading there? It later explains that it has same wording of ”not a threat” used in the letter with Tan’s face. This is how it connects

>>soneca+66
I did not stop reading. The antisemetic postcards from October are different than the ones the supervisors received with Garry's face and the "this is not a threat" line.

Its not clear to me that the ones with Garry's face are anti-semetic; unless they are, due to the nature of his extreme concern with the supervisory board, and that's what I'm trying to zero-in on. Its also naturally possible that the motivations of Garry and the person who sent the postcard are different, but again: I think its scummy to then prescribe antisemetic intent to Garry by connecting the two without elaborating within-the-article on why Garry is so drunkenly distraught.

I am not justifying or trivializing how Garry behaved. Its not ok to say what he said. But, its possible for both sides of this to be scummy and horrible; and that possibility is what I want to understand better.

>>015a+V8
I think you are too eager to decide that the article is scummy.

For me, those two paragraphs do not say that Tan was antisemetic in any form. It says that

i) some of the same people received an antisemitic hate letters before

ii) those antisemetic letters used the same wording than the ones sent using Tan’s face

The only implication that I see is that they were likely sent by the same person/group. I see this is very clear in the writing as it is. Zero scummyness in it.

And, this connection, in my opinion, very much justifies including the antisemetic letters in the article. It seems a very relevant information.

>>soneca+7e
I would argue that Garry's motivation and intent is extremely relevant to this topic of conversation; possibly the most relevant thing. The article omitting this is absolutely scummy, because it fills that omission with connections to antisemetism, and then goes on to speak on how "powerful people need to be held accountable" (absolutely true).

Yes, "for you" and clearly, for me, I did not draw the conclusion that Garry's motivations were antisemetic. That's not the point. Journalists publish articles for an extremely broad audience, and there's a high degree of responsibility and ethics required of the author while publishing; a degree that, to be clear, I do not feel this author met.