preface: i support jews; me asking this Q doesn’t mean that I don’t. i ask this genuinely, and i can’t be the only one confused.

below is the exchange in which Kara/Scott/MSM say Elon endorses an antisemitic post. can someone explain how it is antisemitic? 

to me it reads as frustrated, but by no means hostile.

He means 'dialectical' as in 'marxist dialectics'.
As in classic neonazi talking point: "Jews foist multiculturalism on other people even as they cynically pursue a group strategy that rejects that ideology for themselves."

building [redacted] | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina | “lucky me, lucky mud” 🤠

He means 'dialectical' as in 'marxist dialectics'.
As in classic neonazi talking point: "Jews foist multiculturalism on other people even as they cynically pursue a group strategy that rejects that ideology for themselves."
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultural-marxism-catching

Software Engineer @ Cadence Design Systems. B4: Stanford EE / Illinois ECE

understand the connection, but how do you know he means it like that..?

also how is it neonazi to criticize people who push an ideology on other people but reject it for themselves? isn’t that what NIMBYism is? is anyone who critiques NIMBYism a neonazi then?

Retired Tradfi coder. Dedicated AI hacker. Dad cook. Dog butler.  Happy Grandpa. Known to do pop song karaoke to make universes collide.

I agree with that, of course. But as speaker I can only be responsible for what I do and not what I hope of the other person. So I tend to talk and think that way as that is what I can control - myself.

ah, okay that’s fair and i agree that being clear is much preferred to being ambiguous. 

i think where we differ slightly is i fall in the camp of both speaker and listener are responsible for finding mutual understanding (not even agreement, but understanding). this approach has worked well in relationships for me.

I hold myself to the standard that being understood is the responsibility of the speaker, not the listener.  If you are confused, then the speaker failed and may even have wanted to be ambiguous and is mischievous. So your confusion means it’s a failure of intention, communication or both. It’s theirs to fix.

okay and because he uses the word dialectical, it can be inferred that he believes jews want to destroy the “white race” even though he doesn’t state that explicitly?

2. It's not, I was not making a general rule that its neonazi to criticize people who push X while rejecting X for themselves. It's neonazi to say that the jews have adopted a strategy of foisting multiculturalism on whites to destroy the "white race"

1. The base rate of using 'dialectical' is modern english is approximately zero, except when referring to Hegelian dialetics or Marxist dialetics, and he sure as hell isn't referring to Hegel. (1/2)